Talk:Aarhus

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Randers Regnskov ( Randers Tropical Zoo ) should be added to the get out section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randers_Tropical_Zoo

Another good idea is the ruined castle at Kal�� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C3%B8_slot

Ree Park ( a zoo ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ree_Park_-_Ebeltoft_Safari could perhaps also be added

I also think Brabrand Sø is worth a visit http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabrand_s%C3%B8

No need to list these here. Please plunge forward and add them to the article yourself! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:25, 24 January 2010 (EST)
Ree Park should go en Ebeltoft, and Randers Regnskov in Randers. But Brabrand Lake would be a good addition, and Kalø is a nice fit in the get out section. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 05:51, 24 January 2010 (EST)

All right guys, thanks for your help. I was afraid of doing something wrong. Will investigate the site a bit more before doing my first edit. Will delete this rambling in the talk section later.

No need to delete talk page comments—we always keep them as a rule, even if they're not terribly important, for our records. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:58, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Århus / AArhus: two different articles?[edit]

Is this article on the same subject as Århus? Should they be merged? Danapit (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To Guide[edit]

This is a nice article, and Aarhus seems like an interesting city for a dotm at some point. What's required to make it a Guide? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Or is it actually already a Guide, pending an edit to its status? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. No I don't think it is a Guide already. I added a great deal of information recently, fixed and updated the representing images and corrected the outdated information I discovered. I am quite new to Voyage, so I am not aware of any procedures Im afraid.
Btw. If you think the page misses anything in particular or if there is too much or too little information on specific topics, please comment. RhinoMind (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I just changed the article's status to Guide, which I think it clearly is.
One thing you can do to get it ready for a Destination of the Month or Off the Beaten Path nomination (probably DotM) is to add Wikivoyage:Geocoding to all listings. The easiest way to get latitude/longitude information is to open the dynamic map of the city and do a search for each address within the map. If that doesn't work, you can try clicking the exact spot in the map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will continue to add some important information for a bit, in order to fill out the empty corners. I will look into the geocoding along the way. Thanks for the inputs. Regarding the large numbers of worthy eating spots to include, it is of the order 100. For this reason alone, and some other important ones as well, I still think it would be best to select just a few and then describe the scene in general terms. The idea of categorizing according to location would perhaps be a reasonable idea. RhinoMind (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Over 100? Just how often do you eat out in a new restaurant? ;-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh I don't base it on my own experiences only. I know a great deal of the restaurants here, but I also use a number of guides, food critics in the local papers and on-line media, talk of the town and what ever relates on a trustful level. But I would say that when it comes to mid-range, people here eat out once or twice a month. Splurge 3-4 times a year and budget once or twice a week perhaps on average. Some people less or not at all, some much more. It is just my personal gauge of the scene. Thinking about it, I am also a bit amazed of the quite large numbers, I think a lot of places make the wheels go around by delivering caterings for conferences, celebrations and companies alongside the ordinary restaurant business. You can read about it on the individual homepages and I know a bit about it from friends who are chefs in the business. Mortens Aften, the Christmas months of November and December, New Year and Easter are always totally booked and busy times. RhinoMind (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to study the scene yourself on-line, try Tripadvisor, The White Guide (Danish version), Spiseguiden (Danish), Aarhus Update (Danish) and Mangospot (Danish) for an overview and some names. Even if you cannot read Danish, you can extract the names from there. RhinoMind (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Right now, I for my part, mostly cook for myself or are eating out on a number of budget prices spots, that I know serves good quality, when I am out and about the city. My economy is pretty bad at the moment. :-) Was at Kähler, Delizioso, Casa Mia, Mekong, Spiselauget, Café Underground and a place called Folkestedet, within the last week or two. Not to be served their large menus of course. RhinoMind (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Btw I think we misunderstood each other, when discussing the Guide status previously. My "no" just meant that I didn't think anyone was categorizing the page as a Guide at that time. I am so new to Voyage, that I wouldn't have any qualified opinion on when a page was ready for a Guide status. Well, none of this really matters now, just felt I needed to explain myself a bit. RhinoMind (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cafées[edit]

Hello. I have dared to remove the information about Bülows Kaffebar. It was put up by another user before this page made it to Guide-level. It is an ok café, but not a place that I would mention in a special list. I think it was based on a visit there, but in the literal sea of other cafés in Aarhus, I can't see why it would need special mention. Other people might disagree of course and as I don't like to delete other peoples contributions, I have posted the info here instead. Please discuss below if needed. RhinoMind (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Bülows kaffebar, Jægergårdsgade 80 (A short south on M. P. Bruuns Gade from the train station and to the right on Jægergårdsgade), +45 86 21 55 50. Tuesday through Friday 10.00 to 17.30, Saturday 10.00 til 16.00. A very cozy, eclectically decorated cafe. It is lowered such that your head is at the ground level of the street outside. Friendly barista.

Besides, I have been in doubt if a section on cafés would be a good idea at all. Perhaps it is more confusing than helpful. There are many spots with their own individual character, and the definition of what a café is, is rather blurry. At least in Denmark/Aarhus. Some has evening restaurants and even night clubs even. Some places has a strong focus on coffee and not much else. Would they be labelled cafés? I think it is difficult. RhinoMind (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I have solved the problem now by presenting the café scene in a generalized way instead of a confusing (and unfair) few listings. I am unsure if the "special places" needs to be mentioned. If so, a place like "Hos Sofies Forældre" (At Sofies Parents) might also be included as well as other places. The scene is characterized by a plethora of unique places, each with their own individual concepts, so it is difficult to describe the scene in just a few words. RhinoMind (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I would give you wide latitude to use your own judgment. Let us know when you are prepared to nominate this city for a Destination of the Month/Off the Beaten Path nomination, keeping in mind that it could be a year or more between nomination and the article actually being featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm having second thoughts about this: Any cafe that you mention with a link needs a full listing; otherwise, whenever this article is nominated for a feature, the first thing people are likely to say is that it's not ready yet because when people are traveling and using this article as a printout, a name with a link is not of much help to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah I see your point, although it is a luxury problem for lazy people ;-). Will it solve the problem if the links are left out and the text is presented as is? Could the details be added in another section perhaps? In my opinion it would seriously disrupt the flow of the text if detailed information is added within the generalized text. The most important thing is to give general information that provides a solid and quick overview, is helpful, simple, precise, concise and inspirational. This is the main task of a good travelguide in my opinion. If Voyage guidelines requires certain details to be present in a certain way, could this challenge be solved independently from the generalized information? RhinoMind (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not opposing detailed in depth descriptions, I actually enjoy sharing and write up this kind of information for several reasons. I am just having concerns about it clouding things and disrupting the usefulness of the text as a good (and quick) guide. RhinoMind (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You could be right. All I'll say is that whenever this article is nominated (or you nominate it) for a front-page feature, you should be prepared to argue for this, and others may disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Places listed several times[edit]

RhinoMind and others, you may have noticed that I've recently added coordinates to almost all listings. However, I've noticed that there are a couple of drinking establishments that are listed twice. Places should be listed only once unless there is a very good reason, so is the best place for them under "Bodega and værtshus" or elsewhere?

That's pretty much the only complaint I have on the article, and I'm really looking forward to nominating it for the Main Page (BTW Aarhus is the European Capital of Culture in 2017 which makes for a perfect time to run it). Concerning the restaurants discussed in the thread above; given that we already have so many places to Eat listed with coordinates (almost 50 for this mid-sized city!) I don't think there's much of a problem that some of them are only briefly mentioned. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see two issues here:
Drink (double listings) Yeah I am aware of that problem. I saved it for later, because I wasn't sure how best to deal with it. I want to discuss the concepts of Værtshus and Bodega in Danish culture in general and also mention some of the Aarhus-based joints specifically. Perhaps a useful approach would be to move the værtshus and bodega section to the general Denmark article and then just keep the already mentioned places in the Drink secion of this article?
Eat section I was actually pondering a more useful approach for this whole section. I don't think the overall Budget, Mid-range and Splurge divisions are the best way to present things. I can see the usefullness of it, but I would also like to see a division based on cusine-style instead. That could also include the dining cafés perhaps and take some load of the café section by the way. I have already done a mix of these two approaches as is, mentioning similar noteworthy places in some spots descriptions.
When I begun adding to the article I expressed concern that I was perhaps adding too much to the Eat section (see this TalkPage). But I am past that, and I don't think any cutting down would improve anything. All the places are important in their own category. I don't see any reason for leaving anything out, except for the sake of making the whole section shorter. And that is not a reason in my world. People can pick and choose to read about certain spots without engaging in the whole section all at once. Also, there are no good written guides on Aarhus, so noone can get the overview and information anywhere else. One reason I did the article in the first place.
Ok, that's that for now. Great job adding the coordinate stuff btw, I know it can be quite time consuming. RhinoMind (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
To clarify; they are mentioned in both Drink/Bodega and værtshus and Drink/Frederiksbjerg; without knowing any better I would opt for leaving them in the Fredriksbjerg section and in the listings mention that "this is a good place for a traditional Danish pub experience" or such. Places that have not been listed elsewhere in the article could very well stay in the Bodega section. And I think there was also one or two places that are listed both in Drink and Do (this is somewhat less of a problem). We have this rule to make sure each place gets the same amount of visibility.
As I said, I think the Eat section is OK as it is now, there's something for everyone there. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll move up the Bodega section higher up and delete all listings there. Pinds Cafe, according to their FB page, is no more, because the owner got annoyed by the landlord raising the rent and the complaining neighbors. However he opened a new place, "Teaterkatten", at Kannikegade 12. The other four listings are all already listed elsewhere in Drink. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Tasks before DOTM[edit]

Hello. I see the article is now considered to feature as Destination of the Month (DOTM). Ikan Kekek has expressed interest in knowning what major tasks on the article remains and I will try to sum things up here:

  • As discussed above, some of the general information on værtshus and bodega will perhaps be moved to the general Denmark article and some minor rearrangements could perhaps be implemented in this article.
  • The Hotel section still needs some filtering, as some places should perhaps be in the splurge section, not the mid-range section.
  • The consulate section is still in its infancy.
  • The pharmacies section needs some expansion. Weblinks and perhaps also coordinates.
  • Some of the coordinates recently inserted by Ypsilon needs a check up. There are a few errors (like the Hotel Guldsmeden) and some minor corrections that needs to be made (some places are placed slightly off their true location).
  • I have thought about adding a couple of images to the Drink section.
  • I have been thinking about adding a section about non-alcohol activities and spots in the nightlife in Aarhus.

Feel welcome to comment and add things. RhinoMind (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been mentioned that the article is long. If this is seen as a problem, we could perhaps make separate pages on Eating in Aarhus and/or Drink and nightlife in Aarhus? I don't think any reduction of content is constructive, as everything is there for a reason. On the contrary, new stuff would in fact need to be included in the coming years. I have left out many notable spots, simply because they are brand new and might change or close down, even if they are notable (Eat: Aarhus Street Food, Kulbroen, Aarhus Central Food Market, Sjette Frederiks Kro, Clemens Gastro, Ricks (Morrocan), Köd, Frederiksgade 42 (80% vegetarian, superb), and more. Drink: Mikellers, Ølsnedkeren, La Plage Deux, Ginbar and others). Overall it is perhaps too ambitious to try and include everything about the city in one page only. I have no plans for separate pages right now personally, but just wants to make sure the subject is mentioned and opened for discussion in this section. RhinoMind (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If the værtshus section is relevant for other parts of Denmark too, then do by all means move it there. I agree about the hotels and classifications, prices are from the hotels' home pages for random dates about one month ahead and some of the mid-range prices are indeed a bit high compared to the rest there. The Consulate sections is indeed not ready, but we do have time to fix it and it is maybe not the most important section given that consulates to my understanding can do much less than embassies can. Agree for the pharmacies. For the coordinates, well, I checked up the location on Google maps and then took the coordinates from our dynamic map. There seems to be two addresses for Hotel Guldsmeden in Aarhus, one on Råhøj Alle 7A (which I found first used) and another one which I just found and assume is the right one. Go ahead adding photos if you like; a good rule is that there should be so many photos that readers always see at least part of a photo, but on the other hand there should not be so many that they are packed like sardines. Feel free to add non-alcohol and other nightlife things if you like.
It's not a problem that the article is as long as it is now but please keep in mind that WV isn't and shouldn't be the yellow pages with everything from A to Ø. FYI we never make "Eating in X" and similar articles on Wikivoyage (city articles can be broken down into districts if needed). ϒpsilon (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Lists Hi. I'm relieved that the length of things will not be an issue in itself. However, I acknowledge and also agree with the general rule of avoiding a "yellow pages" development with extensive lists instead of generalized descriptions and text blocks. And I already believe that this page is too "listy" as it is. The reason behind it is not that I personally prefer lists, but it has been a natural development. Most sections presented lists when I came around and I just wanted to fill out the blanks, adding important places, diversifying both geographically and content-wise. And when you add like this, long lists will naturally emerge, piece by piece. Perhaps it is time to transform the lists in some sections into some generalized text? The "Riverside" paragraph in the "Drink" section is ripe for such a transformation I think. I feel I have gained an overview myself and can try to present som alternative text instead of the long list in the near future. What do you think? RhinoMind (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Listings are a useful way of presenting information and deconstructing them into plain text will likely make the content less informative to users. In large, I'd say Eat, Drink and the other central parts of the article are good as they are. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Eat section[edit]

Hi. I think the current sectionizing should be changed from budget, mid-range and splurge to cuisine types.

It is sufficient to mention price-ranges at specific places. Within each cuisine section, spots can also be arranged according to price-range.

Why? If you eat out, the most important thing is the cuisine type, and then (perhaps) the price-range. Sectionizing according to cuisine type will also present a much more coherent and less chaotic overview of the food-scene altogether. Most cuisine types spans at least two price-ranges, grouping according to cuisine type (asian, barbecue, international gourmet, Seafood, Steakhouse, etc. for example) is the most natural and less confusing way forward - even more so if more places are added later on.

RhinoMind (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You consider the cuisine first if money isn't a fundamental factor for you. But I have no problem with separating restaurants by cuisine, as long as they are subdivided by price category when that makes the list more user-friendly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, price can be first priority to some people occassionally. But there is already a price info slot available in each listing-box. So sorting by cuisine-type would still provide price-range info to the traveller.
One concrete example of why I believe cuisine-type sorting is needed at this point, is "Barbecue & burgers" (as a preliminary headline). Burger menus at some quality burger spots are DKK 100-150, while at most of the spots it is DKK 80-100. If we sort by cuisine-type we can describe the scene in a simple and coherent way, while still providing price-range info. If we don't, we would have to split the description across several sections. Just stating this for the sake of ducumentation.
If @DethDestroyerOfWords: also agrees - which seems to be the case -, we could now proceed with a cuisine-type categorization. RhinoMind (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
All this being said, I would also like to mention, that a general description of the budget-priced food scene could be inserted in the beginning of the Eat section. That would probably be helpful to readers. There is already some rudimentary description in the article as is that could be elaborated on. RhinoMind (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

With User:DethDestroyerOfWords recent edits, I was wondering why the alphabetic ordering was so crucial? Originally I have tried to order the spots by importance and sometimes price. I know this kind of approach might only make sense to me perhaps, but is an alphabetical ordering absolutely necessary? RhinoMind (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we are talking about the same thing: Primary division of the "Eat" section would be by cuisine, and then within each cuisine type, there would be subsections by price. In terms of what order to use: The only really logical orders would be alphabetical or by geographic location. Trying to maintain a list in order of importance or quality would be a nightmare. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
yeah you are right I guess. As it is a dynamic scene/page it would become outdated and a chore to maintain perhaps. RhinoMind (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I do indeed agree that by type is a good way to sort these since I feel it showcases all the diversity on offer in Aarhus and I assume most travelers start by thinking about what kind of food they want to eat, followed by what they can afford. I was always under the assumption that the reason alphabetizing was "pushed" so hard is because it promotes fairness (you put the A's at the top of the list, not the "most important" or "best" listing/ it's more impartial and easier to defend). EDIT: Since RhinoMind and I seem to be on the same page, I'm going to move forward with food category as the top level, with price range subcategories. This probably won't happen until after the weekend, so let me know if you think we need more consensus before I do so. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think more participation is needed. Here is the guideline from WV:Listings: Alphabetical order should be used whenever there's no more appropriate logical order (e.g. price, distance, north-south, day of the week, etc.). Where a non-alphabetical order is used, it should be explained if necessary. Somewhere, cuisine type was recognized as a proper order; I can't find that right now, but "e.g." means the list that follows is not exhaustive (etc. means the same thing). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thx for noting these guidelines. RhinoMind (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


In the wake of our discussion I have now implemented some of the changes we have been talking about. Most of what was in the Mid-range and Splurge sections went into a new International Gourmet section. There was, however, two places from the Mid-range section that I was unsure of where to put, so I place them here until their placement can be settled:

  • 1 Mackies's Cantina (Mackie's Pizza), Sct. Clemens Torv 9 (At the Aarhus Cathedral), +45 86 12 36 61. All week (11:30-22). Restaurant and café, known for introducing pizza eating without knife and fork, into Aarhus in the 70's. Pizzas can be made family-sized. Also clubsandwich, burgers, salads, wraps, steaks and fries. Usually discount deals on steaks and wine for two or more. Good food in a lively unique decor and atmosphere. DKK 129 for burgers. DKK 85 and up for pizzas.

RhinoMind (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Drink (order)[edit]

With the recent edits, alphabetical order has been enforced in the place listings.

In the Drink section I originally sorted and listed most places according to geography, ie. how one would encounter each place on a walk about, with the exception of Frederiksberg, Latin Quarter and Other places. I don't think an alphabetical order is helping here. RhinoMind (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think geography is a good way to sort the drink listings into categories, but within the categories (how it currently is with Frederiksberg, Latin Quarter, etc.) have it alphabetical. To show places in relation to one another would be a good candidate for a map. Otherwise, unless the traveler reads the discussion page, they may not be able to parse why listings are ordered the way they are. If their order is called out beneath the description of the geographic subcategory, this might be an ok compromise. As it stands, alphabetization is (mostly) the standard and I can't think of many (any) articles that use another method of listing organization without getting that scary "manual of style violation" banner. tl;dr: I think we can break the rules, but we should make it obvious why.
Yeah, you might be right about the Mos Violation. I don't know much about these policies actually and that is one reason I raised these issues here.
Frederiksgade, River side and Skolegade are all streets and I still believe that sorting by geography within these sections is the best and most useful way of presenting them. We could simply add something like "The spots in this section has been ordered by geography" or "If you walk down this street you will encounter each place in the following order:" or similar. RhinoMind (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(Spots have been ordered, not has been ordered, FYI, though I would use the word "listings".) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alt banners[edit]

current
alt #1
alt #2

It seems a shame all the pretty colors are only within a third of the current banner image. Personally, I also find the article a bit long. Half short, twice strong. Just my opinion. Overall, very high quality, nice job! --ButteBag (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current banner, which is more colorful! I also like seeing the clear shape from looking at more of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the current one as well. Very compelling destination! The others sort of look like there is a color filter issue with the image. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Philistines! You are fake news, lol!
I would argue the alt banners are clearly more colorful, the current one is only like 30-40% color. I do agree the alt crops are missing the rainbow-spectrum-shift-thing, which I'm guessing is what you're referring to, and I would have liked to preserve. They also don't capture (as strongly) the "halo" design of the museum, but I don't think that's a big deal. Generally, I think the banner should capture the "feeling" or "emotion" of a place, and not its "rational" side. To my eye the alts are so clearly "better", I was genuinely surprised to see you guys preferring the original! And yeah, Aarhus looks way cool and this article is really making me want to go there! Thanks to all for all the hard work! --ButteBag (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Length of "Eat" and "Drink"[edit]

Just a comment about the length. the Eat and Drink section takes up a lot of space and is mostly responsible for the long article. They could both be cut down of course, but at the expense of what some considers important information. We have discussed the issue before and I suggsted to write up summarizing sections to descrbe the overall scene in some respects, instead of extensive listings, but I think we agreed that listings were a good thing. I also suggested to move lenghty listings and descriptions to a separate new article about Eat (Aarhus) and Drink (Aarhus), but that is not possible within the scope of Wikivoyage I was told.

There a some important points to consider when discussing the lenght of the article. I have tried to summarize the most important:

  • There are many layers of the city within the Eat and Drink spheres and it is important to provide some information about each layer at least, it is difficult to present the whole scene from a singular perspective. It would be short, yes, but a bit pointless and only helpful to first-time visitors on a short stay.
  • I have tried intentionally to include information that would be helpful to both first-time visitors, returning visitors, foreign students and Danish students (from other parts of the country mostly) and residents even (who tend to be a bit ignorant about the different layers of the city outside their own circles:-)
  • There aren't any thorough (or useful imo) information available anywhere about Aarhus as a travel destination. Visit Aarhus is perhaps the best, but it is fragmented, flawed and not as good as it could be imo. Travel books are generally plain awful when it comes to Aarhus. Sorry.
  • We are currently working on a new version of the Eat section, by presenting it cuisine-wise instead of price-wise. The work is in progress and it appears a bit confusing as is imo. It will hopefully improve.
  • The Budget Eat section is perhaps a bit extensive, even though more could certianly be added to fit out the obvious gaps. I was convinced that it is important to include such information for the many young travellers and young residents? If you judge otherwise, please comment. When the cuisine-categorization have been implemented, the budget options could be cut down. But is that preferrable? RhinoMind (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Why would the budget options be cut down instead of moved to the cuisine sections and defined as budget options within those sections? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. No, it was just presented as an option. It could, perhaps be trimmed if needed. I am in favor of a Budget Eat overview and would like to make the current one better, rather than cutting it down. But the article length was made an issue and I was just relating to that.
Anyway, I might be taking User:ButteBag comment above way to seriously. Maybe length is not an issue at all? RhinoMind (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Check out Chicago/Bridgeport-Chinatown#Eat for a star article example of how to put sub-sections within the standard "Budget", "Mid-range", etc. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you've got 70+ listings for "See", "Eat", "Buy", and overview sections leading into every sub-section, you could think about districtification? That might create more problems than it solves for you? I just know for me personally, too many options overwhelm me pretty quickly and I start to glaze over. Good info is good info however, so I guess it's more of an organizational issue. Good luck! This is a great problem to have. --ButteBag (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. " I just know for me personally, too many options overwhelm me pretty quickly and I start to glaze over" I certainly hear you :-)
Ideally, just like you, I would like pages to be short and concise and only mention a few selected spots. a pocket-size version so to speak. But this page grew and grew. Mostly because of the "layer" thing I mentioned earlier. I was actually planning on leaving this page, as I felt it summarized things in a good way without the information overload problem. I will, however, leave it for other people to judge.
I had considered the distrification approach earlier, but it would be a little tricky to make it work for this town. Maybe it can be used somehow, anyway. RhinoMind (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Structure of "Eat"[edit]

I just had a look, because a User:86.52.49.51 has substituted the word "Splurge" for specific pricing information in some "price" tabs. So now there is no clearly viewable pricing information. I think that's not so good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. That was me, not logging is unfortunately. I didn't delete any info, I just moved detailed numbers to the text and inserted a Budget, Mid-range, Splurge evaluation. It's not a big deal so the reverts of my anonymous edits are ok (for me). RhinoMind (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
But the issue remains that there are no subsections according to price. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Sorry. RhinoMind (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Ikan is saying you should reorganize the Eat listings more like this, check out how they do it in the Chicago link I posted above:

Eat

Budget
Barbecue
Pizza
Traditional
Mid-range
Barbecue
Pizza
Traditional
Splurge
Barbecue
Pizza
Traditional

(I think you have it the other way around currently.) --ButteBag (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The other way round is fine with me, but I would like to see clear price categories within each cuisine type. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thx for explaining. I was actually trying to put Budget, Mid-range and Splurge tags in each listing when I was reverted. I did it anonymously unfortunately, as I forgot to log in, but the revert left me confused. I can take it up again of course. RhinoMind (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see tags; I saw such words in "price", where they're less helpful than actual pricing information. What I'm suggesting is that there should be actual separate sub-sections based on price for each cuisine section. Do you understand? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps. And then, not really.
What you feel is missing are headlines clearly saying Budget, Mid-rang and Splurg, within each cuisine section? I get that.
As things are, stuff is ordered a bit like this:
  • price examples and numbers in the text for listings
  • Budget, Mid-range and Splurge tags in the price section (displayed at the end of each listing)
  • Natural ordering of listings according to a progressive price. (ie. budget options in the beginning of sections, then mid-range and splurge at the end)
I was trying to finish this structuring and implement it fully. With such a structure, extra headlines saying B, MR and S could of course easily be implemented, but it's obsolete. I have to say.
Question: I don't see how #1 and #2 above can be a problem. I thought it was helpful in understanding which spots are B, MR or S? Could someone perhaps explain why it is such a negative thing? I don't get that. RhinoMind (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It's best to see prices at a glance. I think the way you could do it would be to put "Splurge" and then the price range of the restaurant in the "price" tab. That way, you cover both bases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm currently seeing the structure as

Eat
 Barbecue
  Budget
  Mid
  Splurge
 Pizza
  budget
  mid
  splurge
 etc
  etc
  etc

and I quite prefer the way it current is. I feel like you'd have to repeat the blurb for every food type if you did it the Chicago way / way suggested further up. I'd like to confirm that this is the way we have agreed to do it for this article.

Second, I think what User:Ikan Kekek is bringing up about the words budget, mid, and splurge, is that within the restaurant listing themselves, instead of a price (such as DKK 70-85) they have the word budget, mid-range, or splurge. This shows up at the end of the listing so if someone is skimming it is difficult to see at a glance even if an average price is entered elsewhere in the listing. Example bolded below

Not quite ideal

  • AmoRomA, Vestergade 60 (Just opposite La Forchetta in the western end of Vestergade), +45 86 19 30 77, e-mail: . All week. New Italian restaurant in an old preserved timber-framed house. The Italian team here have experience from their specialty store Il Mercatino in Mejlgade and the food is good, served in romantic surroundings. Very good pizzas. Lunch menu from 12-15 hours with pasta-of-today for DKK 95. Mid-range with budget options.

Better

  • AmoRomA, Vestergade 60 (Just opposite La Forchetta in the western end of Vestergade), +45 86 19 30 77, e-mail: . All week. New Italian restaurant in an old preserved timber-framed house. The Italian team here have experience from their specialty store Il Mercatino in Mejlgade and the food is good, served in romantic surroundings. Very good pizzas. Lunch menu from 12-15 hours with pasta-of-today for DKK 95.

Please confirm that I am interpreting this correctly, I'd hate to unintentionally undo or mess up any hard work.

Third, I feel like this article is just a little too small to break into districts, but getting a bit too large. I'd like to see some pruning happen, perhaps in the explanatory text found at the start of food type sections. It's difficult, because much of the information is valuable. With the changes made since the last time I perused this article, I do think readability has improved by the food type first, price second structure. I don't think we should take district-ification off the table (and would be in support of it if others saw the value of it) but I think it is okay as is. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're interpreting my opinion accurately in all cases. The "Eat" section is looking better to me now, but there are some sections in which the first subsection is the name of the cuisine, then followed by "Mid-range", with "Budget" assumed at the beginning ("Asian" is like that). I don't like the assumption and would start the "Asian" section with a "Budget" subtitle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. About price listings. I think Kekek answered that question. I recognize that there are general guidelines to Wikivoyage AND that this is suppossed to be a work of consensus by several authors. So all in all, I am ok with what you guys agrees on here. But ... I would also like to state that I personally prefered #1 over #2 in your post. Why? Because it contains more info and because, in my view, "Mid-range with budget options" is quite useful (instead of very limited and specific price examples only). Also, places have been listed with increasing price level, so it is very easy to get, even if someone is skimming. That was the rationale behind this section.
About districtification. I am not in favor of that for this city. It is too small geographically in my opinion. Nearly all the action is taking place in the city centre, so it would just make things excessively complicated if we split by geography. Especially, if the split would involve splitting the city centre up. It makes sense for Copenhagen, but not for a city like Aarhus. That is my opinion at the moment. RhinoMind (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to do some pruning[edit]

This article is really really long. It has a ton of great content but I feel it's starting to get lost in itself. The solution to this is distrifiation (which has been brought up before and vetoed due to the small geography) or pruning. The first target should be the go next section. The manual of style says that these shouldn't be detailed listings for locations. I think standard interpretation of this has, in execution, been the name of the article/link, an em dash, and a single line summary of the location. I suggest the go next stuff be added to either the places they reside in or be moved up a level (put into East Jutland article, if applicable) if they don't fit in any one city/town article. You could then add something like: East Jutland — the surrounding countryside has many attractions off the beaten path. As a replacement for the attractions that get moved out/into that article. I wanted to bring this up to get feedback before I started doing my namesake and destroying words and moving stuff around. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I have taken a run through to fix time formatting per WV:TDF and currency formatting per WV:$, remove words to avoid per WV:WTA, and fix dead Links. I agree that it has a lot of listings in some sections, and is reaching more encyclopedic length rather than guide length, but I have no knowledge of the city, so would not be a good person to prune the article. Ground Zero (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the overuse of emphasis -- "right next to" and "just across from" -- renders the emphasis meaningless. If the emphasis is used everytime, or almost every time, it loses its impact. We can lose the extra words without changing the meaning. Also, we should avoid using relative descriptions of time -- "recently", "40 years ago", "newly renovated" -- as the readers don't know when this was written, so those terms have no meaning. It is better to indicate the year or the period (e.g., "mid-1980s"). Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Good ideas. I just need to state that there exist no other travel or tourist information on Aarhus as coherent, informative and useful as what is presented here in this article. For this, and other reasons, I would not support any destruction of information. RhinoMind (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RhinoMind, if you're dead-set on preserving all the information you've added, perhaps districtification is the way to go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not dead-set on anything. This is not my page, it's everybody's page. I just state an important fact and based on that fact I aired my personal opinion. Other editors are entitled to their differing opinions, but it would require at least some rudimentary argumentation on their part.
About ditrictification: Also in this regard, I have stated some basic facts (in a relevant thread above), facts that make a distrification unsuitable or at least problematic for this city. Everyone interested in a districtification would at least have to relate to these basic facts and present their ideas of districtiifaction in a way so other editors can understand what it would actually mean. How would you (anyone) districtify this city when 90% of activities and topics described in this article takes place in the Aarhus C district?
(in case nobody noticed, I have added the "District" section lately. This could prove helpful to editors interested in working out how to districtify)
Just to inform everybody, I have been planning on offering my personal (and updated) guide to Aarhus online. In this way I can make my own assessments and judgments and present a useable guide to this city in a way that I myself feel is best, most coherent and useful to travellers, residents, immigrants, etc.. At this point, I don't think I have much more to offer to this page content-wise and this will probably be a good time to leave it to other interested editors. RhinoMind (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@DethDestroyerOfWords Btw. As I think was also stated in an earlier thread when the subject of length was discussed previously, the sections that make this page long are "Eat", "Drink" and "Go next" sections. Just stating.

Small question[edit]

I am copy editing, so far finding only minor things that look like slips where non-native English speakers have not been idiomatic. One sentence has me baffled, though:

The park is quite lively in the summer, as people tend to flock here as soon as the Sun is out.

Does that mean as soon as it goes down in the evening? Or as soon as it comes up in the morning? I would read it as the latter but am not sure what was meant. Pashley (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the location is in Denmark (not well known for hot summer nights), I would assume it means "when the sun rises" --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As soon as it is sunny (i.e. not cloudy or rainy) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As a Canadian, I would interpret that as being seasonal -- the first warm day of spring, even if there is still snow on the ground. But I haven't been to Denmark yet. Ground Zero (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a bit late, but it just means "when the sun is shining". As Hobbitschuster and Ground Zero. It is British English. RhinoMind (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New pages?[edit]

Hi.

We have talked about this before on this TalkPage, but think it might be time to discuss it again. I think it would be a good idea to write a separate food-page for Aarhus. It is an important topic for this city and one that could be even better than what is presented right now. When we discussed the extent of the article in the past, some pointed out that this was not possible within the scope of WikiVoyage. Instead, dividing info into new district-based pages was suggested. While that could perhaps be an improvement too, I wasn't sure how to do that myself, and it seemed that no-one else weren't sure or willing to engage with it neither. I think perhaps it's time to discuss division once again? I have recently added a bit of info relating to the outer districts and perhaps more will be required in the near future.

Is districtifying the only possible way forward regarding division of info? Is a subject-based approach (like food fx) completely ruled out? Does anybody have any constructive ideas on how to proceed with a useful division from where we are now? Do you even think it would improve anything or maybe make things worse if we create new pages for Aarhus?

What are peoples thoughts on all of this? RhinoMind (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very helpful to readers to have all the information in the same article. Every other city has information about places to eat in the article, unless all templated listings including eat listings are farmed out to district articles. Normally, the solutions to having too many listings are either districting or getting rid of some listings that are judged not to be that important. I think that if you'd like to argue for separate pages for restaurant listings, that's really a policy suggestion that should be brought up, I guess, in the Travellers' pub because I can't think of where else it would be discussed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
We do have travel topics for all sorts of travel-related things including Food, but as of now not even world cities have separate articles for their restaurants. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RhinoMind (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)