Talk:Tourism in Greece

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ebart14. Peer reviewers: Pmalykh, Ebart14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned and updated

Hey, I found this article to be in a particularly bad state so I am in the process of cleaning and updating it. --Giorgos 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC) ---Ok I have new done abit of cutting editing and rewriting to the article. I also added abit to it as well. I decided to list popular destinations instead of having them paragraphed like before. Feel free to follow the format of the list. I thought adding pictures to the article was also necissary. Giorgos 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but if you add any sort of information like rankings (and anything along those lines) could you please reference (cite) it? It gives the article more creditials than just uncited information. El Greco 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am in the process of citing right now. Most of the uncited info was not done by me. I am refreshing some statustics too. --Giorgos 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Meher teraditional hotel

this hotel has served for 200 years and archtitecturally related things teraditional and aklso facititated with all welfare equipments located in the historical place of zargar-e-yazdi at the center of teradtional texture of yazd city having water pool colored and 5 doors teraditional shoe holders hall romms with3and5 doors teraditional sho holder hashte kariyas alcove qanats refrigerators and with having all these faciliti remendes them of thepast sweet memory

singel bed rooms doubel bed rooms there bed rooms and suite with all services —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.73.232 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] mehre teraditional hotel this hotel has served for 200 years and archtitecturally related things teraditional and also facititated with all welfare equipments located in the historical place of zargar-e-yazdi at the center of teradtional texture of yazd city having water pool colored and 5 doors teraditional shoe holders hall romms with3and5 doors teraditional sho holder hashte kariyas alcove qanats refrigerators and with having all these faciliti remendes them of thepast sweet memory

singel bed rooms doubel bed rooms there bed rooms and suite with all services

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tourist_attraction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.73.232 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add information not even claimed by the unreliable source

An edit-warring account is spamming the following information across multiple articles:

In 1954 Frederica Queen of the Hellenes organised a cruise around Greece to promote for the first time Tourism in Greece. A great amount of european royals were invited to give to this cruise great attention in the world. After this event the numbers of tourists arriving in Greece greatly expanded.<ref>[http://www.royalchronicles.gr/agamemnoncruisepart-2/ Bασιλική κρουαζιέρα του 1954, β΄μέρος]</ref>

Aside from the fact that the source is a pro-royalist Greek website, the source does not even claim that. There is no mention of a "greatly expanded" number of tourists in that source. Edit-warring of this junk across multiple articles must cease otherwise the next step will be WP:ANI. Dr. K. 03:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Tourists from Macedonia

How could they be more than 3 millions, while Macedonian population is around 2 millions?79.43.198.185 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The population in the Republic of Macedonia tends to travel to Greece multiple times per year as Greece is a popular destination for shopping and holidays. Hence the counting of their frequent and multiple visits per year, have resulted in arrival figures that exceeded the country's total population. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(Republic of) Macedonia

The insistence of using the full term "Republic of Macedonia" in the table of "Arrivals by country" looks like a gross underestimation of the intelligence of Wiki users. The guideline WP:MOSMAC states: The neighbouring country will be called "Macedonia" as far as this term is practically unambiguous. If there is an issue with disambiguation, the country will be referred to as "Republic of Macedonia". When the heading of the subsection is "Arrivals by country" and the introductory text says "The top 10 countries of origin of tourists visiting Greece", it seems to me that using the name "Macedonia" together with the flag in the column marked "Country" is practically unambiguous. --T*U (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What you say is not wrong, but frankly your argument does not completely eliminate the risk of semiological confusion for the readers who are unfamiliar with the complicated dispute over Macedonia's name and find two Macedonias within short reach from each other. I couldn't recommend this, as the republic's constitutional name isn't mentioned at any point in the article at all, and if you remove it from the table, then there is no Republic of Macedonia at all on the entire article, only 2 Macedonias, one in a sentence about region, and one in a table about countries. You are an editor who is very familiar with WP:ARBMAC and the whole discussion regarding the presence of the two Macedonias in the same topics, and I am sure this is not in your intentions. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I cannot see anything in WP:MOSMAC that requires us to "completely eliminate the risk of semiological confusion". That seems to be an extremely far-fetched interpretation of the guideline. I can, however, offer a solution that actually may educate the semiologically confused. I suggest to change the introductory text to the table to "The neighboring Republic of Macedonia had the highest number of tourists visiting Greece in 2015. The top 10 countries were:" The table can then have just "Macedonia" (correctly piped, of course) together with the flag, which would make the table neater. This way, we inform the confused that Macedonia in the table is the same as the RoM, and also that it is a neighboring country. --T*U (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Your proposal is a much better solution than keeping the "Republic of" within the tablet. I am up with that. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

And, TU-nor, let me reply to something you have said earlier, about WP:MOSMAC. You have asserted that in the articles where both Macedonias are mentioned, the 1) intelligence of the readers, 2) flag icon and Country label are enough indicators to make the second Macedonia unambiguous without any text. I am afraid, if that was entirely true and that still no room could have been there for semiological confusion, then the other Greece-related articles could have followed your rationale already. For example, the Greece article couldn't read today "it shares land borders with the Republic of Macedonia" but "it shares land borders with Macedonia" because one could assert that the 1) reader's intelligence, and 2) "land border" make it "practically unambiguous", right? But unfortunately they do not, at least not entirely. Hence the term "Republic of" needs to be used just in case. :-) --SILENTRESIDENT 15:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not entirely honest in reporting my arguments for "practically unambiguous". It is not only "flag icon and Country label" in the table itself. Leading up to the table is the heading and the original text with three more indicators: "Arrival by country" in the heading, "countries of origin" and "visiting Greece" in the text. Altogether five indicators that point to the neighboring country, quite a lot stronger than the "land border" example. Anyway, as you will understand from my suggested solution here, I am not against using the full RoM name, I am just tired of people pushing it in where it is unnecessary. But then again, I should be happy every time it is not FYROM that is pushed! Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I am honest to you. Did I claimed anywhere that "flag icon and Country label" as being your only arguments? Nope. Of course not. I was just summarizing them into one of the two groups used in your argument: 1) intelligence, and 2) article. It is terrible of your part to assume dishonesty of my part for summarizing them. I am SURE you knew I was just summarizing your arguments, otherwise I could have written the following lengthy sentence instead: "1)intelligence of the readers, 2)flag icon, 3)Country label, 4)Arrivals by country, 5)Clickable internal link to relevant page." But I guess, you can't spare others from having to write them all for you without risking being blamed for dishonesty, can you? :-)

About the border case, I am afraid it is still strong - aside from the border indicator, the "Macedonia" in the same sentence as "Albania" "Bulgaria" and "Turkey" leaves little room for assuming that it is anything else but a country by itself. Right? :-)

About ROM and FYROM push: it makes sense why this whole (Republic of) Macedonia stuff was bothering you. So it wasn't exactly an aesthetic problem about the tablet, but a possible political pushing as well, right? This is unfortunate, but I can't blame you, it is hard to find disagreements today in Wikipedia that are of semiological background and not a political one, especially on Greek articles. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You must excuse me for feeling that "You have asserted that ... the 1) intelligence of the readers, 2) flag icon and Country label are enough indicators..." is not a very precise summary of my arguments. Having said that, I do regret that I took up this discussion, and I ask you to accept my apology for using the words I did. That was out of order. As for your suggestion about "possible political pushing", I can assure you that I try hard to follow the WP:NPOV guideline. Having at different times been accused of bias against Turks, Albanians and Greeks as well as Slavs of many kinds indicates to me that my track record is not so bad. And I hope my solution proposal in this very article shows the same. --T*U (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I should have written it more precisely. My apologies for that. As for your track record, it is fine, you have done nothing wrong, at least in my eyes. Thanks for the solution nevertheless, as the section in question is better than before. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 20:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete 2016 numbers

I have removed the 2016 numbers and reinstated the 2015 numbers for the time being. The reason for this is that the source given for the 2015 numbers is incomplete. Out of the top ten countries for 2015, four are not specified in this source: Macedonia (1st), Bulgaria (4th), Turkey (7th), and Poland (8th). That the editor responsible for introducing the 2016 numbers has inserted unsourced numbers for Bulgaria and Poland and changed many of the other numbers compared to the sources, is another matter. The ELSTAT source used for the 2015 numbers has so far only numbers for the first half of 2016, here. They indicate that Germany and UK are going up, while Bulgaria and Macedonia are going down, but more than two thirds arrive in the last six months, so there is not much to do until the ELSTAT numbers for 4th Quarter 2016 are presented., unless someone finds another complete source. --T*U (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article requires a thorough cleanup, especially in the sections on Archaeological Sites and the Gallery. Archaeological sites should not be listed in bullet points, this is a violation of MOS:EMBED. The gallery should also be removed, as Wikipedia is not a collection of images; Wikimedia Commons is. Per WP:GALLERY: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. --Michail (blah) 19:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to decide whether we should go by keeping photos of the most recognized landmarks in the country (and probably the most touristic ones), or by keeping these photos which are more representative of the country's diverse history and heritage and diverse climate and geography. People should not remove the gallery blindly, as we will eventually need some of these photos to provide the readers a glimpse of what tourists see in this part of Europe and why it is so popular as a tourist destination in Europe, with citizen/tourist ratio being a record high of 1:3. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)