Talk:Lake Constance

The following first person account was removed from the article. Perhaps someone can use it. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:15, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

---

CROSSING THE BODENSEE

Driving your car onto a big boat to cross a wide body of water is very civilized excitement. My wife and I have crossed the Bodensee (Lake Constance) four times between Konstanz on the south shore and Meersburg on the north. It's a delightful half-hour ride with cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians. The upper-deck lounge sells coffee, sandwiches, snacks, and cold drinks. What more could you want?

The fare depends on the size of your vehicle. A compact car like a Ford Focus or an Opel Astra costs nine euros, about $11 (in September 2005). We've never had to wait -- there was a ferry loading every time we drove onto the slip.

The Bodensee and its shores are very beautiful in a quiet, cultivated way. The views are serene, not spectacular. If you want dramatic scenery, drive a couple of hours to the Alps. If you want to spend a pleasant afternoon swimming and sunbathing, however, go to a beach in Uberlingen. Buy an ice-cream cone. Watch people change into their bathing suits right out in the open (this is Europe, not New Jersey). Doze on the grass. See how many sailboats you can count in one minute. I didn't realize how much I needed this vacation....

---

VFD discussion

This article may or may not be in violation of our "bodies of water" policy, given that we have a region article named after the lake already, Bodensee region. Quite frankly I see no path forward that would make this article of any actual use to anybody and there is no real place to redirect it other than Central Europe which just strikes me as nonsensical Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It's currently set up as an extraregion, and there are 53 links to it. I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't just leave it as-is? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bodensee_Region only covers the German parts of the lake. I think an extraregion is appropriate to cover the Austrian and Swiss parts as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy is to use the commonest English name; arguably Bodensee Region should be redirected to this. Pashley (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

But the Bodensee Region is an actual Region article, so it shouldn't be redirected to an extraregion article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but it might be handled like Ferghana Valley, as an extra-hierarchical region with three real regions in three countries under it.

I do not know the area and am not at all sure it is a good idea, but moving Bodensee Region to the English name "Lake Constance (Germany)" looks to at least be worth discussing. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Bodensee region

I guess 'Lake Constance' would be known by English speakers better than Bodensee, although the 'extra region' only describes the towns around the lake whereas the 'Bodensee region' reaches far into the land of Baden-Wuerttemberg state up until the city of Ulm. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment : stop feeding trolls. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Restating my case: If I don't misunderstand our bodies of water policy (such as it is) it says something along the lines of "We don't have destination style articles on bodies of water" and then there are a couple of "however"s, one of them allowing "regions named after bodies of water" (which would mean the Bodensee Region article). However, I don't see anything allowing an article such as this one when there already is another one that covers a region named after the body of water. If we want to change our bodies of water policy to a simpler: We allow articles on bodies of water if they are large enough and/or of sufficient touristic interest, I am fine with that, but unless I am misunderstanding the current policy, this is at least an article that stretches some interpretations of it. And I was told in earlier vfds, that I should cite a policy an article violates as grounds for deletion (as opposed to its size, its bare outline state or other things) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to give my own take on 'bodies of water' policy since I don't have one. :) I admire that you are tackling it, I just don't have the bandwidth to analyse and engage at this point.

I have sympathy with the view that Lake Constance is not a destination in itself (unless you want to zip around all the countries in a motor boat) and the article is possibly a candidate for a disambiguation page to the respective regions bordering it. Practically I would suggest just cleaning it up and making it shorter. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)