Talk:Rio de Janeiro

I'm so impressed with the way this article is progressing! Excellent job adding information and excellent job getting it into our preferred format. Good show all around! --(WT-en) Evan 23:01, 12 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * I can only agree with Evan on this, and say that it's going to be very useful for me since I'm planning to go there in July/August. One question: the international airport used to be called Galeão. On this site it's called Galeão (Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport). Has it changed names or are both used now? (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 03:47, 13 Mar 2004 (EST)


 * The airport was originally called Galeão, and renamed about 10 years ago. I don't know which is official, but I would think locals use both. And I would make a guess that like most renamings, the older, shorter one has stuck. - - (WT-en) Paul Richter 01:41, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

---
 * The airport is still called by its old name by the local people. It is normally outsiders who call it by its new name. Brazilian politicians enjoy changing names of roads, places, etc, to praise someone they like which can become very confusing. The official tag for the airport continues to be GIG.


 * All the best,
 * (WT-en) Robert Martim

--

most road signals are placed after the curve you were supposed to take Do you mean "most road signs are placed after the exit you were supposed to take"? -(WT-en) phma 00:10, 18 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Inacuracy
I deleted this part here:

"Brazilian (or at least carioca) men have a curious shopping custom that will delight female and gay tourists - shirts are tried-on right at the counter, not in a changing room. This can create some confusion to the uninitiated male tourist, as the store clerk will instead of leading you to a changing room, motion you to change right there. Of course, if you are a typical flabby American, you will likely elicit more giggles than delight..."

From the "buy" section because it's just not true.

I also corrected some small inacuracies and cut out some untrue parts.

201.5.155.238 17:14, 23 March 2008 (EDT) Rafael Alves.

Usable
I'm still trying to get a feel for the 'states' but I really think this is closer to a 'Guide' than something like Essen which qualifies as a "usable" article. I'm not saying it doesn't need some details filled in, but it seems more fleshed out than just 'usable'... comments? (WT-en) Majnoona 22:39, 20 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * Maj, I think everyone is still trying to get a feel of the ratings. I belive the point of the Guide status is to have a erm...guide that can be used as primary and sole source of information. With a Guide article, you wouldn't normally need to resort to other sources, even if it's some internet search or asking the locals for precise directions. In that sense, I see Rio still at usable status - you can certainly get in and find some accommodation (if you're lucky enough, as listings are too short), but would still have a hard time finding attractions and sights by yourself, let alone choosing what to see, because most attractions haven't been described yet. In other words, listings do not yet "closely match the Manual of Style". Or am I being too picky? (WT-en) Rmx 06:49, 21 Nov 2005 (EST)

renaming to Rio de Janeiro
I think this article should be moved to "Rio de Janeiro" and shouldn't be "Rio de Janeiro (city)". The city is far more famous than the state. -- (WT-en) Ronald 17:29, 6 March 2006 (EST)

riotour web site
I removed several links and replaced the "official link" (external link on first mention of the name) with what actually appears to be the official rio web site (http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/). I can't find mention of the riotour site on the main site, despite the spammer's claim of it being official. If I'm in error, please advise (and cite). (WT-en) Jordanmills 12:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Zona Oeste
First the short description of Zona Oeste "   *  Zona Oeste (West Zone), a suburban area including primarily the districts of Jacarepaguá and Barra da Tijuca, popular for its beaches." Was literally copied and pasted in from this article (https://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm?articleid=233908) I am going to do some research and change the line completely because hacking someone else work is not what wikivoyage is about. Second - I would love to get the district page up and going, but I am not finding much out there, does anyone have any suggestions?(WT-en) Trew 17:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)Trew

Reorganising Rio
Although there is a vast amount of info here I think it needs restructuring. There is too much duplication between the main page and Zona Sul, for example and lots of repetition everywhere. The normal practice is to list hotels under districts not the main page and to use the main page to give a brief summary of sights, listing them in the district articles. See Chicago as an excellent example and Rome as an example of one that is getting there (slowly!). Any volunteers? (WT-en) Shep 20:50, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Me again. Does Rio really need district articles? There is not so much in most of them and they could be merged back into one main article. 95% of the hotels are in Zona Sul. I've just been looking at Cape Town. Excellent presentation of Guide quality without the need for separate sections?(WT-en) Shep 12:57, 23 August 2009 (EDT)


 * I have begun some serious work on these articles, beginning with Centro, adding details and places that are simply missing. If you have ever been to RJ, you know that it unquestionably needs district articles, perhaps even more than the four we have now. I will continue to work with the four we have so far, and we'll see how full they get. The fact is that there is simply a lot of stuff that has never been added. Anyway, I'm going to work on filling up the district articles first, and then we can go back and rewrite the main page. (WT-en) Texugo 00:28, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * You put me to shame. I should have started this ages ago. I shall follow what you are doing with interest. The problem with more district articles is that (1) this would probably involve breaking Zona Sul into two parts (north of the tunnel to Copocabana and south?)and (2) that outside Zona Sul and Centro there are lots of restaurants, shopping centers, etc. but not that much to attract the tourist and I feel that District articles need to have a fair balance of attractions. Wikivoyage on Rio gets updated almost daily. If you haven't already, take a look. I suggested once that there should be a Wikivoyage Conference along the lines of Wikipedia meetings. Perhaps Rio would be a great place to start? Anyway, good luck.(WT-en) Shep 15:18, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
 * I don't necessarily agree with the need for all district articles to be perfectly balanced, since different areas have different characters. Having an abundance of unique, interesting Eat or Drink listings could be as much of a draw as having an abundance of See or Do listings, if one is there long enough to really get to know the city rather than just to do the touristy things (I spent five weeks in RJ on my last Brazil trip). Forcing balance could sometimes cause an unnatural jumble of listings that are too distant from one another. That said, at this point I still don't think Rio needs any more or less than the four districts we already have.
 * By the way, I believe Wikivoyage gatherings have occurred in the past, though I'm not sure where the place for discussion is and I haven't been to one. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend any in the near future unless perhaps it ends up being here in East Asia. Maybe you should bring it up in the pub though. (WT-en) Texugo 22:33, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Understand section
Does anyone still think of Rio as Brazil's capital? I suggest we delete the first line of Understand. Or at least delete "common". (WT-en) Shep 14:49, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
 * As far as I know, it is still a common misconception, at least among people who have never traveled abroad. (WT-en) Texugo 22:41, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Please
Please make no change like We are Brazilian, and we are not American. We do not spell words like America.


 * Eu concordo
 * I'm not saying you are American any more than you are saying you are British. I teach at FISK and my Brazilian girlfriend is a school teacher, so I am positive that there is absolutely no standard way of spelling English in Brazil. There is a mix of both spellings, leaning heavily towards American spelling-- Except for Cultura Inglesa, practically all the English schools (FISK, Wizard, etc.) and practically all public schools teach with American spelling. While you two (if you are two separate people) may have learned British spelling, it is definitely not a "standard way". As in this case, when a non-English-speaking country has no clearly preferred spelling, Wikivoyage tells us to leave the articles as written, which in the case of almost all the Brazil articles, is American English. I'm going to revert it back to the status quo again, where it should stay. If you have further arguments, please present them here and don't go making changes in the articles without consensus. (WT-en) Texugo 10:14, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

Gay Travel
I disagree that Rio is a gay travel hub. While yes there are very attractive men there its not a gay destination. There have been many instances of gays being attacked in Rio. There is maybe ONE gay club in Rio and a gay friendly portion of ipanema beach. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Starnexus (talk • contribs)


 * The page should be protected for a while, there's this childish dumb homophobic idiot who writes about antibiotics and Aids. It's getting boring. 187.36.106.137 21:21, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Get in
Request someone who knows make an entry about visa requirements. Hennejohn (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * Visa requirements should go in the Brazil article... unless Rio is a special case in some way? LtPowers (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * No, Rio don't have any special visa... (WV-en) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * No, Rio don't have any special visa... (WV-en) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)

"Rio" as redirect?
We currently have a disambig page at Rio. I suggest that be moved to Rio (disambiguation), the Rio page made into a redirect here and an otheruses|Rio tag or some such added in this article. It seems to me that "Rio" almost always refers to this city. Pashley (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we actually have much precedent for primary-topic redirects like this. However, we can push that uncomfortable discussion off for another day as the only other use is a redlink. We can just redirect it; I don't think we need a dab page or a hatnote.  Powers (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Paternalism
I probably won't edit this or any other Wiki-Voyage article, but the "advice" here needs to be more neutral. The "Do" and "Sleep" sections, for example, both say that a lot of favelas are safe. And they tell the user to use her own judgement when offered a tour from a strange guide. Later, the "stay safe" section has some out-of-date opinionated crap that makes it sound like all favelas are equally dangerous and that unfamiliar tours should be rejected without a second thought. Connor Behan (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Advice shouldn't be neutral; it should be fair, accurate, and should serve the traveler well. It should also be internally consistent. If you have current information, please plunge forward and edit the article accordingly, because like any other Wiki, Wikivoyage is only as good as volunteer editors make it — and that means you, as much as anyone else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My disclaimer was meant to avoid a debate about the merits of the site itself, but here goes. Serving the traveller means writing from the point of view of an upper-middle-class Westerner who has free time and disposable income. This makes it fundamentally incompatible with being fair. Even if a business in a developing country worked tirelessly and cared about its customers 10 times as much, it would be very difficult for it to secure the same kind of approval from this audience as a wealthy New York establishment. The editors you want are the ones who agree with the guideline about ignoring Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Connor Behan (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you have somewhat of a misconception about who Wikivoyage editors are. I am far from upper-middle-class, and while our readership naturally skews toward the Anglosphere, it includes people from the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. And now it also includes you. You have just as much say in making and keeping things fair as anyone else, and more than others if you know the place well. Of course your larger criticism is inescapable - the nature of the editors does bias things to some degree, inescapably. But understand that neutrality is not only impossible but undesirable in a travel guide, which has to recommend some places, criticize others and simply leave out many listings for establishments that can't be recommended. Neutrality in listings would reproduce the Yellow Pages in every article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope I don't come across as overly defensive. I think your criticisms hold some water, and I myself, though a native New Yorker, had an anthropologist mother and lived in rural Malaysia for 2 years of my childhood, and I've edited out some pretty extreme examples of ethnocentrism where I found them. Since you can more easily spot these kinds of things than many other readers, I hope you stick around to help edit out that kind of language wherever it's inaccurate or offensively phrased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-compliant redistribution?
rio.city mirror a lot of content from this article, as far as I can see without leaving any attribution. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerned Wikivoyagers, please direct your comments and ideas to this thread. Best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

How to note a museums temporary closure...
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-45395774

Was trying to find it in the Rio article, to leave a note.. What's it's Portugese name, and what sort of wording should be used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was removed from Rio de Janeiro/Zona Norte... -- andree.sk (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Andree. Was just about to say the same. Shakespeare, the Portuguese name is Museu Nacional, and if you want to note a temporary closure in future, you can just add it to the listing in a prominent place, either on top of the opening hours or in the 'content' field. Or if you want to be really fancy, you can hide the whole listing with a set of these bad boys, and note the closure somewhere prominent in the 'See' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd hesitate to downplay destruction on this scale as a "temporary closure". When to use dates says "our goal is to give only current information to the traveller, including old information only when it is useful to avoid being misled by information commonly available elsewhere" and "the general rule is, once an establishment has closed the listing should be removed" with a few, limited exceptions. K7L (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Quite right. But it will become apparent only with time how permanent the closure is likely to be. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I added an infobox to Rio_de_Janeiro/Centro. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If anything opens in its place, it won't be the original (which was destroyed) but a new museum with a similar name or location – and it would be too soon to list that as no construction has started. I'm not sure if we had a guideline on "coming soon" listings, but they're of limited use unless and until the voyager can actually go there. Again, something on this scale may trigger an exception as the history of the palace, which existed for a couple of hundred years with the grounds becoming the zoological garden, along with the history of the museum and its destruction might fit in "Understand" or as part of the listing for the (I presume, still functional) zoo. Also, should this infobox be in Centro or Norte? K7L (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WV should only list the current situation, to reflect the attractions travelers can actually visit if they'd travel there today. Listings of closed attractions or speculations on future developments are needlessly confusing, not helpful to the traveler, and probably belong on Wikipedia instead. 94.119.64.15 13:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In most cases a destroyed attraction or business would just have been deleted, but as this apparently was a world-class museum and a major cultural and historical attraction in Rio, I think an infobox could be warranted.
 * Our district division of Rio de Janeiro puts the park where the palace stood in the Centro (not in Norte, where it was listed), and therefore the infobox should be there too. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area
Please, I would like to know if there is anything wrong, any kind of mistake according to the rules of Wikivoyage, in this version of the article about the Grande Rio region.

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Grande_Rio&oldid=4870753

I have read several pages about Wikivoyage's policies, but have not found in this text anything that violates them. If there are any inappropriate parts in it, please, show them to me, and I will correct each one of them as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance! 187.111.14.164 03:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Further discussion is at Talk:Rio de Janeiro, FWIW. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In any case, there's no way for any of us to know which part of that version of the article you want our feedback on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the situation. Basically, the anonymous IP has the extremely encyclopaedic approach, adding long paragraphs of description and comparison, full with long lists, "located" 's and other Words to avoid, not really getting the spirit of WV:Goals and non-goals or WV:Tone. I trimmed some, but the whole region, with all the sub-articles under it, needs heavy copyedit. Furthermore, some of the ares described are hotbeds of drug trafficking gang activity and shootings, and I'm not really confortable with the thought of them being encyclopaedically described in Wikivoyage as to invite visitation. I tried to dialog but the answers I got from them smelled to me somewhat like "respect me, I'm a local, you're not" sarcasm. I'm Brazilian. For the record, I lived in Rio for one year, SP City for two, I love going back to SP but Rio I don't miss at all, I admit some prejudice, and would label this sarcasm "carioquice", local cockiness, so I think I'd better stay out of this discussion to avoid any hint of "going personal" or bairrismo, that is, local bias. Ibaman (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ikan Kekek!
 * I just want to know if there is any part of the whole text of that version of the article that should be changed and in what way. I am willing to make the necessary changes to that article in any way I can.
 * As for the comment above, I have never been arrogant with anyone here. I only expect logical argumentation and rationality (as well as a respectful dialogue) when changes (especially drastic changes) to an edition of an article are made, be this article about Rio de Janeiro, be it about Tokyo. 187.111.14.164 12:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The risks concerning the crime in Rio are well explained in the article about Grande Rio, as well as advices to stay safe. On the other hand, the article about the city of Rio de Janeiro (which I did not write) makes several invitations to the so-called "favela tours", what I definitely do not recommend. 187.111.14.164 13:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To anyone with some free time: A quick read of the articles about Los Angeles, Mexico City, and Metro Manila is enough to see that there is not a big difference between the texts of these articles and the text of that version of the Grande Rio article. 187.111.14.164 22:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point that Wikivoyage is a travel guide. The existing Understand section makes the point that in one way: Grande Rio has a large population. Your edit makes that point again in a different way, but doesn't make a new point. Then it goes into a long Urban Studies/academic explanation of the socio-economic structure of the region that would be suitable for Wikipedia, not here. If there are other articles that are similarly off-mission, they should be edited, rather than held up as a justification for making this article worse. Ground Zero (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I was waiting for: A rational and objective explanation of what was wrong with that article. Since there are no clear criteria (or at least I do not know of them) defining what is appropriate for a travel guide and what would be better suited for Wikipedia, I generally guide my work in two ways: Taking other articles of Wikivoyage as models, or following accurate advice on specific mistakes I may have made here from more experienced Wikivoyage members. Thank you, your explanation really helped. 187.111.14.164 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And a subtle reminder to anyone else: don't bite the newbies. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I will not stay, Wikivoyage is not for me. There are no criteria for distinguishing what is appropriate for a travel guide from what is too "academic", and there can not be, since this distinction is subjective. With the exception of extreme cases, what some see as encyclopedic content, with excessive detail, I consider as useful information for a trip, just as what some consider appropriate for a travel guide, I might see as lacking several interesting information. I still consider the information in the articles about, for instance, Grande Rio, Mexico City, and Metro Manila as valuable for some travelers. I, for example, have never been to Metro Manila. If I were about to visit that metropolis, I would want a guide about the region with all that "encyclopedic" information, it would be useful for me. Given that there can not be clear, objective criteria established in Wikivoyage policies for a subjective distinction, the majority opinion, in this case, defines what is appropriate and what is not.
 * I would not feel comfortable on Wikivoyage, and Wikivoyage also will be fine without my work.
 * So I wish you all good work, I'm leaving. 187.111.14.164 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, goodbye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Encyclopedic information can be found on Wikipedia. No need to duplicate it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

having been thus reminded, and making apologies for my harsh manners, I suggest better study examples for good Wikivoyage style on formatting a big city: Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Downstate New York for a Grande Rio-sized thing, and especially Buffalo, crucially the trimmings made from 25 April. They reflect the writing style Wikivoyage is striving for. Ibaman (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I, too, hope I wasn't rude. It's simply true that I didn't have the time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of you were rude, but for a newbie, it might have been a little bit intimidating (since some users learn slower than others). -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)