Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia/Archive

Page Banner[edit]

What about changing the current banner into the following one?

Rapsfeld banner.jpg

PS Although the current one is very nice as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's really a pick-em. Can both banners be used somewhere on this site? That's the ideal solution in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a brilliant banner, but doesn't strike me as NRW. I do believe the NRW banner should reflect the heavily urbanized character of the region - and have some Rhine in it. But I was thinking exactly the same - the current banner could be used as the Ruhr one, replacing what is essentially a slightly less nice version of itself. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
PS. Some featured pics I believe would make a nice banner:

Reform Regions[edit]

The regions that this article is subdivided into are for the most part half empty outlines with many of the only containing a handful of destinations. It may be wise to change their layout Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I find all of the regions viable, but lacking content. We need to fill them in! Can we focus on Hesse this week though? PrinceGloria (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Regions the third[edit]

I have nominated Münsterland for deletion given its current state. With few exceptions other regions of NRW are in hardly a better state. Can consolidating regions into a lower number help? If so, how? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The vfd will not stick, and seems strange. Considering that there is currently insufficient content to make most of the regions useful, and considering that there aren't many interested editors, a good proposal to consolidate into larger chunks could be more fruitful, yes. I do agree that, from a traveller's perspective, the division into fairly small regions was premature, but it will take someone with knowledge of the are to come up with a better division for now. I only know the Eifel well, and I must say it's a very logical region to have, as it is often considered a tourist destination, just like that. I've spent quite a few weekends "in the Eifel". It would be easy enough to fill that article if anyone was interested. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
As it now stands (all region articles are rated outline unless otherwise noted):
I have not looked at the city articles themselves, but I know many city articles for Germany are or have historically been in no good state whatsoever. Only two region articles are fleshed out (Ruhr to an appreciable degree, Cologne Lowland only by comparison to the other bare outlines). Eifel arguably also contains a bit of information, but it being apparently spread over four pages (Eifel, two articles by state and Eifel National Park) does not do it much good. The other regions contain not much more than one paragraph of information between them. There may be good reasons against a new regional division, but the quality of the current region articles is not one of them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
No-one is contesting that the current state of the articles is poor. It's easy enough to list issues, but what are you proposing in terms of regions? Or are you proposing to not have any regions for North Rhine-Westphalia? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Possibly some of the regions could be merged into bigger ones. Maybe the three "Eastern" regions (Münsterland, Sauerland Siegerland and Teutoburg Forest) in one category and three western regions (Cologne Lowlands, Lower Rhine, Bergisches Land) in another. Eifel appears to be a special case that is extremely awkwardly handled in the current setup (what with there being four "Eifel" articles) and maybe having one article for the parts of Eifel regardless of federal state makes more sense. I don't know. It is just rather obvious to me that the current setup does not in fact work. Maybe because it is too fine-grained, maybe because we are all lazy, maybe because there is nobody from NRW on en-WV or for myriad other reasons. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"maybe having one article for the parts of Eifel regardless of federal state makes more sense", excuse me but it was split on your request. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not what that talk page comment was about. Clearly one region being a child of more than one region violates the geographical hierarchy, unless it is an extraregion. Extraregions however cannot be part of the normal regional makeup. I have not patent solution, but a similar problem exists for Harz which covers territory in more than one federal state and was at some point part of their regional hierarchy. I don't know the patent solution for this problem, that seems particularly prevalent for Germany, but having one region show up as the child region and in the regional makeup of two regions clearly is not the solution either. Nor is having four articles covering "Eifel" - confusion is bound to arise with both authors and readers. You tell me how to solve this. I do not know. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This "issue" is not new, nor is it a German one. It simply comes with the extraregions. We also have multiple articles under different regular regions and even countries for the Pyrenees, Kashmir and a bunch of other extraregions. I'm not so sure the current setup doesn't "work" in principle. The main issue seems to be that no-one has spent time to fill the articles, yet. That doesn't mean the setup is destined to fail. If you think it would make more sense to develop the Eifel extraregion article and perhaps just link from the relevant state articles, that would probably be acceptable, since the Eifel is fairly small.
As for the region division, user:PrinceGloria should probably also weigh in, as he indicated the current division seemed right. For a region with as many inhabitants as all of the Netherlands, and a large touristic scene, I do agree that the current setup should be fine. If we don't expect anyone to work on the regions any time soon, however, I'm open to to a consolidation. So, your suggestion then is something like "Eastern North Rhine-Westphalia", "Western North Rhine-Westphalia", and "Ruhr"? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Besides Ruhr, Cologne and Düsseldorf, NRW is not actually all that urban (by European standards, that is). You rightfully point out that Eifel is indeed a rather popular tourist destination and our coverage could be improved (And I'd like you to weigh in on how to divide it up other than the current four articles), but the other regions? I am not so sure. We also have to take into account that domestic tourists or people who speak German well are more likely to use de-WV for Germany at any rate, so our audience focus should to a certain degree be on foreign tourists that are rather unlikely to care about small hamlets and will probably not care either about too fine-grained regional distinctions. And the consolidation proposal is probably the most radical thing that could work in the direction of less regions, if one or two fusions are a better way, by all means we should do that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have now deleted or commented out all "other destinations" mentioned above with the exception of Eifel National Park (Which I am frankly unsure what to do about) as they are defined (as per their "ispartof") as child regions of other states, so I did not quite see how they can be "other destinations" within one region and a child of a totally unrelated region. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe the subregions of NRW are OK, but simply underdeveloped. I would suggest trying to improve them slowly - I understand your ultimate goal, Hobbitschuster, is to have Germany attain the highest possible article status, but I do not find this that important and neither would I want to bend over backwords over formalities just to enable the achievement of that goal. If you'd like to propose a timeline for work on subregions of NRW needing help, I am happy to help in due course, as long as the timeline and scope is realistic. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the star ambitions. Keep in mind that for Germany to be star, North Rhine-Westphalia would have to be guide, but the regions under it would only have to be usable. That means that for the listed regions, only the most important destinations need to be at usable status. That alone shouldn't be a reason to change the regions. However, I do agree with Hobbitschuster that the regions are so poorly developed that they are more of a hindrance than a help for travellers. I'd say there are two short term solutions. One, is to consolidate the regions, and come back to the current division when there is ample information in the consolidated articles (in general, today, we try to only create a regions layer when there is too much information in the existing structure). Another option is to simplify the current region templates. Remember that long discussion last year about simplifying regions where it makes sense, to keep the breadcrumb hierarchy but push back the many empty headers? While the overall opinion wasn't unanimous (with one person opposing), there surely was consensus support. I don't know the region well enough, but it could make sense to get rid of some of the unused headers for now. Do we need, for example, stay safe and eat sections for all these regions? I mean; are the local difference large enough from a traveller's perspective to make it worth writing and reading ten individual sections just for North Rhine-Westphalia? There's no objection at all to inserting some of them if there's information to fill them with. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Frankly a starnom for Germany wasn't on my mind. Why it would be nice to have, it's not exactly the number one priority. At any rate, the Germany article mentions that Germany is a rather diverse country and that even within the 16 states there are big regional contrasts. Now a user might click on the biggest state by population and find (relatively prominently displayed) our region articles which (with one exception) contain very close to nothing. Now maybe there is something in the German articles which we could translate, but in my experience de-WV and en-WV don't necessarily gel all that well oftentimes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the current regions are quite handy and convincing. They just have to be filled. While having just three regions (North Rhine, Westphalia and Ruhr) may have some merits, they would be huge and unhandy. For example, Rheine and Siegen (both in Westphalia) are 200 km apart – it would be tough to make general statements about, say, how to get into Westphalia that would be valid for the whole region. Actually I have re-modeled the regions at de-WV based on the current regional division at en-WV, because I found this division really sensible. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I suppose we'll just stick with them, then. I do suggest we remove most of the empty headers. I've been reading up a bit, but I don't think there's really enough regional cuisine for, say, Bergisches Land to warrant a section. I think it's far more interesting to have an Eat-section with some comparisons in the North Rhine-Westphalia article and some local delicacies in the city articles. Same for drink, but correct me if I'm wrong. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, there are some notable differences when it comes to preference of beer types, i. e. Kölsch in the Cologne area, Alt in the Lower Rhine region, Pils in most of Westphalia (South Westphalia is home to three of the best-selling Pils brands of Germany). Tourists might get into awkward situations when ordering a certain beer style in the respectively "wrong" region. --RJFF (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would propose just one modification: moving Sauerland-Siegerland to South Westphalia – it is a little shorter and moreover some parts of South Westphalia belong to neither Sauerland nor Siegerland. --RJFF (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but we can perfectly well explain that in the Drink-section of the North-Rhine Westphalia article. Then you can actually discuss the differences between the underlying regions. I don't think it's reason enough to have separate drink sections in all 10 region articles. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Which cities should be listed[edit]

As User:RJFF recently added two cities (Dortmund and Essen if I am not mistaken), bringing the total to 11 (two above the allowed limit for non-bottom-level regions) we should probably have the debate which 9 or less cities to list. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dortmund is the state's third-most populous city, Essen was the European Capital of Culture. Both should be listed at any rate. I would rather strike Gelsenkirchen and Duisburg as they don't stand out from the other Ruhr cities that much. --RJFF (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am with User:RJFF on that, besides Essen and Dortmund are larger than Duisburg by population, not to mention Gelsenkirchen, which is not even marked on our regional map. I'd consider bending the rules to keep Duisburg listed though. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have no objection to bending the rule for Duisburg (the rule isn't that strict anyway). I agree Essen and Dortmund need to be on the list. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the rule is hard and fast. Just look at the Asia article where someone always tries to add Tehran. If two or more cities are equally (un)deserving, we can list only eight, but I am vehemently opposed to listing more than ten places in the "cities" subsection of any non bottom level region. If you want to change policy, we can discuss that at the appropriate place, but this rule has served us well and we should not make exceptions willy-nilly. Imho either Münster Aachen Paderborn or Wuppertal could be cut from the current list, but Aachen is probably prominent enough due to the association with Charlemagne and Wuppertal has the Schwebebahn and Friedrich Engels going for it. At any rate; more than nine subregions may make sense and hence such exceptions are acceptable (as are four subregions), but more than nine cities are only permissible in bottom level regions which NRW is not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I won't express an opinion about which 9 cities should be listed, but I certainly disagree with making this non-bottom-level region a unique exception to that rule. Think about how much controversy there's been about which 9 cities should be listed in the India article. No, no exception here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, to have a reasonably diverse distribution of cities across subregions, I'd propose removing Essen and keeping Paderborn. Despite the whole European Capital of Culture thing 6 years ago, I still feel that Duisburg is decisively more interesting than Essen. That said, our Paderborn guide is in a sorry state, and Bielefeld is both a slightly better guide as of now and a larger city. As Teutoburg Forest is a region with predominantly domestic tourism, perhaps locals can decide. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's probably a question of taste, but I think Essen is very interesting, think of Zeche Zollverein (which is pretty much the symbolic landmark of the whole Ruhr district), the Folkwang Museum (one of the most well-known art exhibitions in all of Germany), the design museum, lots of art galleries. If there is one Ruhr city with the highest concentration in points of interest, it's probably Essen. Moreover, our Essen article is much better developed than the one on Duisburg. Alternatively, I could accept removing Wuppertal. The Schwebebahn, zoo and botanical garden are actually the only major attractions I can think of. Do they warrant listing Wuppertal as one of nine top cities in a region that has dozens of cities? The article's state is not too convincing, either. Münster and Paderborn should not be removed, at least for reasons of regional balance. There are only two Westphalian cities (outside the Ruhr region) on the list, while the Rhineland is rather overrepresented with five cities listed. Cologne, Düsseldorf, Aachen, Essen, Dortmund and Münster are must-haves, in my opinion. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Not too familiar with this corner of Germany but I'd say Düsseldorf, Cologne, Aachen, Essen and Münster should be on the list, probably Wuppertal and Bonn too. Then the two remaining regions Teutoburg forest and Sauerland-Siegerland could be represented by one city each. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Wuppertal can hardly hold a candle to e.g. Cologne or Bonn, but I'd say we need one city from Bergisches Land... I am not that familiar with Essen, perhaps it is indeed the cultural hotspot you portray it to be, but then I am not sure about Dortmund, which seems large but pedestrian to me. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic Map[edit]

Map of North Rhine-Westphalia

Only some of the regions are colored, and it seems the "Ruhr" region is bigger in the dynamic map than the static map. What's up with that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ruhr is bigger in the dynamic map because it shows the official boundary whereas WV doesn't follow the "official" Ruhr boundary. In an earlier region discussion, now archived, there was a decision to exclude Wesel from the Ruhr region for WV purposes and include it in the Lower Rhine region.
Re only some regions being coloured, regions are only coloured if there is a corresponding region in Openstreetmap and OSM has been linked to Wikidata. Looking at the earlier region discussion, it looks like a number of the regions don't follow administrative boundaries so the regions won't exist in OSM or they won't match our regions. Someone will need to create a dataset for our custom regions before they'll properly show. Unfortunately, dynamic maps don't deal with these situations very well right now. I'd prefer to not display any regional mapshapes in a situation like this (because they're incomplete and/or inaccurate), but I'm not sure everyone would agree. -Shaundd (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think a crutch that might work is going down to the Landkreis or Gemeinde level and aggregating them, if that makes sense... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Since the static map is a good one, should the dynamic be removed, at least until in a better state? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but could somebody maybe do the drawing in their sandbox? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster, going down to the Landkreis or Gemeinde level should work as long as they are loaded into OSM and linked to Wikidata. -Shaundd (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think they should be, at least I have found that mapframe usually works for German destinations... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)