Talk:Laufenburg (Germany)
Add topicDo we need two articles for this
[edit]The town of Laufenburg is split between Switzerland and Germany. There are two articles, this one and Laufenburg_(Switzerland). The content of the articles is almost identical (with the exception that the German town has two sleep listings). In my opinion it doesn't make sense to have two articles with identical content. In my opinion there is two options here:
- Merge the two articles. This would be ideal in my opinion, but it will mess up the regional hierarchy as we'd have to decide which country to put it in.
- Keep both articles but rewrite them to only focus on the specific part they cover.
Unfortunately I haven't been to Laufenburg as far as I remember and don't know how much of two different towns or just a single town they are. Any inputs on this? Drat70 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, handling of twin cities tends to be dictated by size (number of listings). A large travel destination like Nogales or Niagara Falls is likely to have two articles (and possibly an {{extraregion}}), while Thousand Islands (rural) and Glenrio (ghost town) are not split. Population here is DE: 4300, CH: 2000? It might make sense to list this as primarily in Germany, then split individual sections to indicate what's Swiss. K7L (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think something along those lines would make sense, then put a redirect in the other one. However, I was trying to find out which one is of more interest to the tourist, but having trouble determining it, because the tourism websites of one side also name the attractions on the other side. I guess population as mentioned above would be a way to determine which way to go (Germany). Drat70 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably the article would be just plain Laufenburg (by asking an admin delete the {{disambig}} that was there to make way for the page move). It used to be that way. It's just the {{isPartOf}} breadcrumb trail that's awkward as an article can only have one parent region - so Black Forest, northwestern Switzerland or central Europe but not both Germany and Switzerland. K7L (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- But an article should always be at the lowest rank in the hierarchy, right? I tried to add articles spanning two regions to the smallest common region before, but I got called back on this. (Swiss_Alps_Jungfrau-Aletsch in particular). I'm still trying to find a definite answer to that question. Drat70 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Dunno. Thousand Islands isPartOf North America and Great Lakes has similar issues. K7L (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- But an article should always be at the lowest rank in the hierarchy, right? I tried to add articles spanning two regions to the smallest common region before, but I got called back on this. (Swiss_Alps_Jungfrau-Aletsch in particular). I'm still trying to find a definite answer to that question. Drat70 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably the article would be just plain Laufenburg (by asking an admin delete the {{disambig}} that was there to make way for the page move). It used to be that way. It's just the {{isPartOf}} breadcrumb trail that's awkward as an article can only have one parent region - so Black Forest, northwestern Switzerland or central Europe but not both Germany and Switzerland. K7L (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think something along those lines would make sense, then put a redirect in the other one. However, I was trying to find out which one is of more interest to the tourist, but having trouble determining it, because the tourism websites of one side also name the attractions on the other side. I guess population as mentioned above would be a way to determine which way to go (Germany). Drat70 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I now did the merge to Laufenburg. I took special care to make sure to include content from the recent edits on both articles, but if I overlooked something, I apologise for that. For now I breadcrumbed this into Black Forest, as per the population argument above. If somebody thinks this is not the right way to go, please feel free to change that. Drat70 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)