Talk:Black Forest

Hi there,

the article is very poor and often untrue and excellerated! I am born in Titisee and must say, the person(s) who wrote this stuff doesn't know anything about it. It seems, he or she didn't took enough time and interest to learn to know the place! I have to believe, he or she only walked down the single road all tourists do and fell for all the silly souvenir shops there...

First: the Titisee is no man-made lake but a remain of ancient glaciers covering the Feldberg. Most tourists at least in the hot spots like Titisee are American and Japanese who want to see the country of the series "Schwarzwaldklinik" with Prof. Brinkman they know out of TV. They mostly spent very few time there and jumo from place to place. People who stay longer are mainly people coming every year to the Black Forest to relax, enjoy the nature, fresh air, the view and hike. Especially the many wild and romantous gorges are quite impressive (Wutach Schlucht, Ravenna Schlucht, Höllental) and not as difficult to do as many tours in the Alpes. Motorcycling also is very popular because of the mountainous streets.

Many of the information is untrue: I know two Pizzerias in Titisee where two people could eat nicely for 20 Euro (The "Pescatore" and the "Rusticana", 2005). In the villages around many small restaurants serve traditional home-made food, sometimes produced by their own farm. A wonderful place like this near Titisee is the Gasthaus Strauß in Jostal. You can hike there and enjoy the view of mountains and forests. Of course the best Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte isn't selled right next to the Titisee. You have to go to the traditional cafes and bakeries around, perhaps the Vogelbacherstüble or the Salenhof in the valley Schwärzenbach or the Cafe Becker in Titisee or the Cafe Butsch.

There is budget accommodation, too, for example the two Jugendherbergen (YHA) in Titisee and several small bed&breakfast a few kilometres off the lake.

Best is to bring or borrow a car or a motorcycle, but since short time every registered tourist in the Titisee region can use all busses and trains for free. But you aren't able to get to the very best spots without a car (unless you are a good hiker): the very wild valleys, the best restaurants and cafes and the most natural areas.

---Nadine, 26/09/2006

Please plunge forward and edit the article! (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:22, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

This article is a mess

Unfortunately, I have probably been closer to Selva Negra, Nicaragua than to Schwarzwald, Germany, but I may still be of some assistance. Anybody got an idea how to solve this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• We have made some progress in the meantime, eh. About the subdivision scheme you have just proposed on the Pub, we could do it geographically (which sounds boring) or thematically, highlighting wine spots, open-air museums, beautiful landscapes, hiking routes and so on. The dynamic map shows many listings outside the map mask. This should be addressed as well, I think. Unfortunately, I don't know the area either, once I actually slept at Freiburg im Bresgau while on a road trip to Berlin, but didn't linger and hit the Autobahn to Leipzig. Ibaman (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The mapframe covers a certain definition of the "Schwarzwald", namely it being highland and the Upper Rhine Valley is not that. As I said, a mess... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The cities section followed by the towns section

Is surely not how this is usually done. Anybody got an idea what to do about this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we include Europa Park in the "Other destinations" section of the Black Forest article or move to the "Go next" section?

Swept in from the pub

Earlier I added a mapmask of the Black Forest region to the Black Forest article (I imported the mapmask from openstreetmap.org) and to my surprise Europa Park as well of many other locations we have listed under the "Cities, towns and villages" section of the Black Forest article, weren't actually within the Black Forest region.

As such, I wanted to suggest that any of the locations which aren't within the Black Forest boundaries be moved to the section "Go next" in the Black Forest article (which is supposed to be about nearby prominent locations.

If you prefer that that all those locations continue to appear in the "Cities, towns and villages" and "Other destinations" sections, I suggest we change the name of the article to Black Forest region (similar to Sea of Galilee region which isn't only about the lake itself) or something similar that would suggest that article is about a bigger region than just the Black Forest.

Any thoughts? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Baden-Württemberg, you will see that the contributors who originally defined this basically made the entire south west region of Baden-Württemberg state into Black Forest.

You are correct to say it doesn't technically equate to the official boundaries of the Black Forest itself, but it would be messy to define new regions for the small areas around it that are not officially in the Black Forest itself. It can, as you say, be considered a 'region'.

I would still personally prefer not to rename the article Black Forest Region, but just my POV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem though... which I exemplified with the Europa Park article, is that we are currently spreading false information -that the Europa Park is indeed located within the Black Forest. (look at the breadcrum at the top of the article Europa Park). This falsehood would keep on duplicating itself as other editions of Wikivoyage translate these articles to their own languages. This would be easily fixed with the minor changes I suggested. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How about calling it Southwestern Baden Württemberg? Yes it is as generic a name as can be, but it is accurate, isn't it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No. "Black Forest" is a far likelier search term than "Southwestern Baden-Württemberg". And Europa Park is located in the Black Forest as defined in the regions map at Baden-Württemberg, which should be the end of the debate over whether it's included in this article. It's the mapshape in the Black Forest article that needs to be changed. As for the "falsehood" of stating that Europa Park is located within the forest itself, it's not anything we need to get worked up about - it's close enough to the forest that for all intents and purposes, the difference is too trivial to bother with. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Given what we see at w:Baden, how fruitful would it be to make this region more co-extensive with Baden or some part of it? It's rather surprising to me, that none of our subregions of Baden-Württemberg contain Baden or Württemberg in their name instead of both... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep as it. Many regions on this site do not follow strictly the definition of some administrative boundary and as mentioned above is the most internationally well know term for the area. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue becomes clear through a topographical map. It is rather obvious that the area to the west of the Schwarzwald and towards the Rhine is quite different in altitude and character to the Schwarzwald. As for Rust (the town that's home to Europapark) that's here. What about calling the whole region Southern Baden? It might not be 100% exact but maybe we should fudge around with the boundaries anyway, given the state of Swabian Mountains. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Baden-Wuerttemberg

'Black Forest' is frankly a more charismatic name to travelers than Southern Baden, and I don't think there is any issue in including towns that are literally just outside the official geologically defined region.

Take a look at how Baden is structured and I would you would agree that the state isn't exactly set up for dividing up on WV using official boundaries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I think for the most part the current Landkreise are boundaries we can safely ignore. But there are some unfortunate things about the current layout. For one there is both Bodensee Region and Lake Constance as articles, for another Stuttgart Region is a region you might find in a dead trees guide but rarely in our guides. And then there is lumping the Upper Rhine Valley together with the Black Forest under the name of the latter... I do not, mind you, have the perfect solution... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

These are reasonable questions. Actually, there are varying definitions of the Black Forest. In modern geography, it starts approximately where the shell limestone ends. That's the border found around "15 Schwarzwald" in this map. The boundaries of the natural regions that are being used by the nature conservation authorities can be found in greater detail in this map. In this definition, even the low foothills along the Upper Rhine Plain are not part of the Black Forest. Neither the Europa Park nor Maulbronn Abbey are really part of the Black forest. Historically, the use of the name "Black Forest" was extending further towards the east, aproximately to the river Neckar. Now, forget all of this, because this project is about tourism, and the Black Forest Tourism Board doesn't follow natural boundaries, as its members are counties and towns (see list of "Stadtkreise" and "Landkreise" here). Also, in the tourism statistics, Baden-Württemberg is subdivided into just a few regions that are named after their main attractions, but their boundaries follow the counties', not the natural regions'. There is no Upper Rhine Plain or Kaiserstuhl in these statistics, and so the visitors of the Europa Park will show up in the statistics of the Black Forest. I think these details shouldn't be completely ignored in the article, while it's still ok to include places that aren't actually part of the natural region. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Different region boundaries?

Given that there are now a lot of cities listed under this article, should we subdivide this region? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can split it into tree new subregions following the de-WV lead:

• Nordschwarzwald - hochmoor- und fichtenwaldreiche Gegend zwischen Karlsruhe, Pforzheim, Offenburg und Freudenstadt
• Mittlerer Schwarzwald - fichtenwaldreiche Gegend zwischen Offenburg, Freudenstadt, Donaueschingen und Freiburg
• Südschwarzwald - Gegend mit viel Wald, sanften Hängen, aber auch steilen Tälern und Hochmooren zwischen Freiburg, Donaueschingen und dem Hochrhein.

OR we can just add three new categories to Black Forest#Cities section without creating any articles at all, so we'll end up with the following:

==Cities==

===Nordschwarzwald===

• Karlsruhe
• Pforzheim
• Offenburg
• Freudenstadt

===Mittlerer Schwarzwald===

...

--Kiaora (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should split off those cities that aren't in the mapshape anyway, as they are apparently not inside the "Schwarzwald" per se. Maybe call that region Upper Rhine Valley or some such. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this region, so it's very hard for me to judge. Have a look at the discussion they had at de:Diskussion:Schwarzwald#Regionen, maybe it will ring some bells. --Kiaora (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know the region either, but what if we divided it into east and west? Or north and south? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

So I made this to show what I mean with splitting off those cities in the West that aren't actually within the mapframe and presumably not within the Black Forest. Maybe we can thus base the discussion more on concrete and travel relevant categories instead of arbitrary "North South dividing lines" or some such. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What about Freiburg though? It seems to be on the edge of the Black Forest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ah, I just saw the text in your Upper Rhine Valley article and I understand now. But yes, Hobbitschuster, I would support the regions division you have created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

These maps may or may not be of some help... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually do not think the number of the articles is the issue but having spent some time in the region I would differentiate the mountainous region of the Black Forest from the Rhine valley area. There are then a few missing article for the Black Forest, Freudenstadt and Dornstetten are two that come to mind without looking in more detail. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I must say, I am not quite sure about these edits. I think we've already established that the county borders are problematic in this area and besides that, there is a "hole". And then there is the issue of the Upper Rhine Valley not being the same as the Black Forest... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of the valid discussion above it does reflect the current status of the article. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Forest - regional subdivision

Swept in from the pub

The region now has 23 listed "cities", among them small places like Schiltach. Should we subdivide it and if so, how? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it seems that the discussion died. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hobbitschuster, I just imported the mapshapes to the Black Forest article. Maybe those regions could be a good reference for subdivision. Please also have a look at this overview map.--Renek78 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

After checking the article for the black forest I actually don't see the purpose of subdividing it. The article in its current form is already pretty short. Why creating even more subarticles? Just because there is a long list of cities? Not strong enough of an argument in my opinion. --Renek78 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There are cities currently listed in this article which are not in any sense in a mountain range. And the Black Forest is a mountain range. So the article name is a misnomer as it now stands. That if nothing else is a reason to subdivide or change the name, so that no city that is not "black forest" in any sense of the term is listed under that name. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The region area consists of 80% black forest. Good enough to keep this catchy name even though some surroundings are included as well. Just my opinion, of course. --Renek78 (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Banners

User:Ikan Kekek just reverted me when I updated the page banner. Actually, I'm also the one who had added the current banner (1), and I do think that (2) is slightly better. One reason is that it shows some meadows and thereby is a better representation of this landscape that has some regions almost completely dominated by trees and other regions with more meadows. I uploaded a third banner (3), a view from the Feldberg that also shows some meadows. I didn't take any of these photographs, I just cropped them for this purpose.

Why can't we represent different faces of the Black Forest by cycling through a set of good banners? Sitacuisses (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

My favourites in order are 2, 3 and then 1 (the current). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

My preference order is 2, 1, 3. 3 is the last because it has little tree cover for an area designated "... Forest" to me.

As far as I'm aware, rotating different banners for a given article isn't an idea explored yet, although I think I can vaguely remember a discussion about it somewhere. Vidimian (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sitacuisses, thanks for starting this thread, so we can make a collective decision about this. They're all good banners. Right now, I favor 2, 3 and 1, just like SHB2000. Could the other banners be used in any other articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)