Talk:Emilia-Romagna

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page banner[edit]

The quality of this banner is extremely low. Per recent discussion Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Bad_Banners I suggest it to be replaced back to default unless another quality picture is found. Danapit (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

map

If you want on it:voy we have created a new touristic map for this region. (we are still creating subregion's articles and maps) --Lkcl it (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I am not knowledgeable enough about the region to have an opinion on whether to change it or not, but this map and its regions have been inserted into the article already, so now there are basically three different regional breakdowns in the article: the new one, the old ones by province, and random other regions in the Other areas section, some of which may or may not coincide with the new map/regions. If we are going to adopt the new map/regions, we need to rename the regions in English and then merge and redirect the other existing province/region articles into them. On the other hand, provinces seem to be the way we have subdivided other areas of Italy, so it may make more sense to stick with those, in which case we need to remove the new map/regions. Either way, we need to reduce the number of different division schemes the region is broken into. Some of these extra-hierarchical regions might be better explained here rather than having their separate pages; if there are too many, it starts to get confusing. Texugo (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and remove the regions/map for now, as they're all in Italian with red links anyway. Below:

- Texugo (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texugo, if you need some help with the title translation I can support it. But I would decline for the translation of all the complete articles created in it:Emilia-Romagna, too much for me :-) Let me know. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would help move the conversation along if you could propose some translations for the above regions, yes. The main question is, given that other Italy regions are broken into provinces, does it really make sense to use these new subregions for this region, instead of provinces? Texugo (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To help the conversation I've put above a title translation draft. Regarding the two division types: administrative provinces Vs. touristic area, we have preferred the second one because is possible to better regroup cities and territories with common history/geography ecc... So a tour of those area could make more sense. However, defining these area and creating the relevant articles takes time, so we work on 1 region at time. Currently we have decided to keep and not delete the province articles just for reference, however, no province has been used in the breadcrumb through our Quickfooter template (Note: en:voy use isPartOf template).
In the future this division would be more stable, because Italian provinces changes over time, while touristic area would remain the same. --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need provinces?[edit]

Most provinces here contain only their capital city, and we've got the list of all destinations in the main article anyway, which we could easily split into Cities and Towns and be done with it. We may dream of adding new destinations, but for now even the current ones, many of which are actually important tourist destinations, are merely stubs and if any effort will ever be exerted (which, judging by recent edit history, it won't) we should focus on them. Can we therefore remove the superfluous provincial articles? PrinceGloria (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the province articles really has any content except for a city or two listed. I would do away with them. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Four and a half years later: it doesn't look like this was taken forward. Is it still the view that these provinces should redirect? The point is not that they're hollow, but that they're redundant / obsolete - prospective content belongs on the relevant city pages. I've made a start with Bologna. A glance around Italy reveals many examples elsewhere so I'll put in a shout on the Italy discussion page. Grahamsands (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a long discussion will happen here anyway. SHB2000 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but this seems the right place to record what has or hasn't been done within E-R, where Bologna now looks to be the exception. The other provinces looked hollow but have substantial content on WV-IT and I've switched to the view that we don't need to change them, but populate and better organise them. So what seemed like a quick fix has burgeoned into a very big task. Probably the 2016 contributors came to realise this, but they retreated without posting a note. So to date:
  • Bologna province redirected to Bologna, which broadens to cover the metropolis, with a handful of outlying attractions marked there.
- Imola however is a large town within it, so this page was created and nests within Bologna.
- If further examples crop up, then consider re-establishing the province page, renamed Bologna Metropolis.
- In the short term this has led to an eczema of red-links to towns that may or may not merit their own page.
  • The other provinces need similarly populating. No work yet done.
  • If I've understood correctly, in 2014 the national government intended to merge these nine provinces into four, but this was only implemented for Bologna. We'll need to re-assess if the proposal is revived. WV-IT has used a different classification, into geographical zones (river plain, foothills, mountains) but this creates other problems and doesn't look like the model to follow. Grahamsands (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added text to the less developed provincial articles, particularly Piacenza (province). I think that there is no need to merge provincial articles any more. Ground Zero (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, as the Italian Piacenza was poorly developed. I've built Ravenna province and intend to redirect the hollow Bagnara di Romagna page into Faenza. Grahamsands (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cities"[edit]

There are 16 listed. If we do keep articles for provinces, we should reduce the number of cities here to 9. Here's the list as it stands:

  • 1 Bologna (the capital) - one of the oldest cities in Italy, and the site of Europe's oldest university.
  • 2 Bardi
  • 3 Carpi
  • 4 Cervia
  • 5 Cesena
  • 6 Cesenatico — port town on Adriatic.
  • 7 Faenza
  • 8 Ferrara
  • 9 Forlì
  • 10 Maranello — home of Ferrari.
  • 11 Modena
  • 12 Novafeltria
  • 13 Parma — a town known for its ham.
  • 14 Pennabilli — A charming medieval town, hosts various installations by the poet Tonino Guerra.
  • 15 Piacenza
  • 16 Ravenna — sometimes referred to as the "Capital of Mosaics", between the 6th and 8th centuries Ravenna was the principal center of Byzantine civilization in Italy.
  • 17 Reggio Emilia
  • 18 Rimini

I suppose the following are obvious:

  • 19 Bologna (the capital) - one of the oldest cities in Italy, and the site of Europe's oldest university.
  • 20 Ferrara
  • 21 Modena
  • 22 Parma — a town known for its ham.
  • 23 Ravenna — sometimes referred to as the "Capital of Mosaics", between the 6th and 8th centuries Ravenna was the principal center of Byzantine civilization in Italy.
  • 24 Reggio Emilia
  • 25 Rimini

That's already 7. I'd argue for the following:

Forlì looks to be an important city, though its article needs more development.

But I really don't know which city should be the ninth. I don't know anything about a bunch of the listed cities except whatever is in their articles. So I'd love for someone who's actually visited this region to pass judgment on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should plunge ahead with this list of 8. There is nothing in the 7+/-2 rule that say we have to have 9. Ground Zero (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress. I was intending to mark just the provincial capitals plus Cesena which is a co-capital with Forli. Grahamsands (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. I intend re-directing the hollow Montefeltro to Marche. It spans the hills of three regions but Marche has the largest share and is a well-developed page to land on. Grahamsands (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emilia-Romagna&oldid=4226662"