Talk:Graubünden

Do we really need to include all the sub regions on this page? Maybe just one or two well known ones instead? For example

• [[Region]] -- including the popular ski resort area of [[Subregion]] and isolated but scenic [[otherSubRegion]]

I think we shouldn't. It is distroying the page. -- (WT-en) bujatt 18:34, 28 September 2006 (EDT)

---

I agree. I think that all the Engadine sub-regions (Upper/Lower) should be moved to the engadine page.(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Further on the topic, I have a map here

yet has no labels, which can be found courtesy of Wikipedia.

Reshuffle the regions

I think this article needs a reshuffle of the subregions. As it is, the regions are defined by the districts, with the exception of Maloja and Inn which are combined into Engadin.

Now I'm not sure whether this division makes sense, as there are some divisions which might be quite arbitrary to the traveler. For instance Laax and Flims are just next to each other and share a common ski area, but are in different regions. Furthermore some regions, such as Imboden or Landquart don't really have that much to offer to a tourist. For those reasons I suggest we reorganise the regions.

I am not quite sure what the best way to do so would be, so if anyone has inputs on this, please give your inputs. I think something like the following would make sense:

• Engadin as it is (including Maloja and Inn) but with the addition of Bernina
• One region 'Bündner Oberland' including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart
• One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula and Moesa
• Prättigau/Davos as it is

This is not ideal because Moesa and Plessur are a bit out of place. Another option would be:

• Engadin as it is minus the Italian speaking part
• One region 'Bündner Oberland' including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart
• Prättigau/Davos as it is
• One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula
• One region encompassing all the Italian speaking valleys: Moesa and Plessur and the ITalian speaking part of Engadin

While this solves the problem above, it is still quite arbitrary to group the Italian valleys together, so personally I'd think the first one makes more sense.

Any inputs on this? Drat70 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about this some more and I think the following will be a good solution:

• Engadin as it is (including Maloja and Inn) but with the addition of Bernina - this one really makes sense. IT will then include three small valleys connected to the main one via passes, each of which really don't make sense as a region of their own.
• One region including Surselva, Imboden, Plessur and Landquart. I would like to call this 'Surselva and Rhine valley' - This makes sense as it is the main Rhine valley up until where the Vorderhein and Hinterrhein meet up. The Vorderrhein valley is the Surselva and the Hinterrhein valley has its own region. This is going to include mostly what's inside the Surselva article plus Flims and Chur. In the future there might be space for an article for Arosa.
• One region 'Mittelbünden' including Hinterrhein, Albula and Moesa. For the English name I suggest 'Central Graubünden'
• Prättigau currently doesn't exist yet, but is probably important enough to deserve its own region. Would include Davos and a potential new article on Klosters

I started making the changes for the Engadin region, however I'll give it another week or so before implementing the changes for the other regions in case somebody has another suggestion. Drat70 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is now done. I didn't create any additional regions other than the existing Surselva and an expanded [[Engadin)) in the end, I think that can be done if and when the need arises. Drat70 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)