Talk:Saarland

Kreise as bottom-level destinations?

I've been thinking on starting articles on Saarland's individual destinations beyond Saabrucken, but I quickly realized most of them would read "this is a boring mining town, but it has one or two attractions like..." I do not think there is a point in creating many of those. If we combine the localities by Kreis though, we can gather together perhaps at least half a dozen attractions (and some nice landscape photos - it is the landscape that is Saarland's forte, not the towns) and the Kreise are small enough to treat them as singular destinations, especially with the public transit options available. Anybody against? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got a clear idea, so take it and run with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already the policy, not every place with a name on the map gets its own article. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, kind of, Globe-trotter. The typical case is that a sizable city will absorb any listings for outlying villages. A much rarer case is where we have a single article for a group of communities, none of which are really sizable. I'm not entirely sure which we're talking about here. If it's the latter, fine, we have a few well-done precendents for that, but if that's what we do, we just need to make it clear that that's what we are doing. If the article is going to be collective coverage for a group of small communities, then the idea should clearly be to cover all the communities in the given area. We should avoid any messy hybrid region/city situation where an article covers given kriese abcdefg with a city template including listings, but secondarily functions as a region article because parts b and f are also covered in separate articles. Texugo (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The 6 capital cities of the Kreise get an article, and they also deal with the surrounding area of the Kreis it is in. Globe-trotter (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)