Talk:Haßberge
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by Traveler100 in topic district
district
[edit]The Haßberge district (Landkreis) has some communities south of the Main river in Steigerwald. I suggest that the article should not refer to the district, but to the landscape, as in WV-de de:Haßberge. -- Benreis (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether that's a good course of action. The Landkreis has defined borders and there are some resources out there based on the administrative boundary. I am not sure that's the case for any arbitrary boundary not coinciding with administrative boundaries we might draw. Keep in mind as well that we want to have a breadcrumb navigation without overlaps. There are good reasons to ignore administrative boundaries sometimes, but if all else fails, basing regional subdivisions on (existing or prior) administrative boundaries is not always a bad idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- With WV-de we rarely use administrative regions, we want to map the tourist regions. Important is what helps the traveler. We are not WP, we are a travel guide. -- Benreis (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, our subidivision does not usually follow administrative regions, but if you have a look at Berlin or Nicaragua to take two examples, the regional subdivision we created does not follow administrative divisions, but combines certain administrative divisions into more manageable divisions (Rio San Juan Region for example contains the departamentos of Juigalpa and Rio San Juan, whereas Berlin/Mitte mostly follows the Ortsteil Mitte and other subdivisions are combinations of one or several Bezirke). What I am saying is that regions based on administrative subdivision can be the path of least resistance, and it can be a good idea to combine certain administrative subdivisions into a region rather than use "arbitrary" lines. There is also the consideration of the breadcrumbs. For example, Franconia is defined as a child region of Bavaria as per its breadcrumbs. So that means we cannot have it cover anything not contained in Bavaria, even though that excludes places that are clearly culturally Franconian and includes places that arguably aren't. The alternative would be to make Franconia an extra-hierarchical region, which would mean no city or region article can be a child region of it and would needlessly spread coverage of the region over numerous articles.
- With WV-de we rarely use administrative regions, we want to map the tourist regions. Important is what helps the traveler. We are not WP, we are a travel guide. -- Benreis (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- At any rate, back to the issue at hand @Traveler100: what do you say to the concrete example? Should we follow the administrative boundary of the district or should we draw an "arbitrary" line to include parts of other Landkreise (which would mean renaming the article and might mean removing the WP link or pointing it elsewhere). Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would keep the article to the administrative boundary as far as what listing should go on the page or not but see no issue with writing content that includes information about the geographical area. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- At any rate, back to the issue at hand @Traveler100: what do you say to the concrete example? Should we follow the administrative boundary of the district or should we draw an "arbitrary" line to include parts of other Landkreise (which would mean renaming the article and might mean removing the WP link or pointing it elsewhere). Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)