Talk:Surselva

Style brackets

Why does Texugo keep putting Style brackets on this page.(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 11:50, 23 December 2008 (EST)

At a guess, I suspect it is related to the long list of what I can only call words at the top of the article. They don't serve and obvious purpose, and probably go against policy as it leads to a long page that will not work well on a mobile device, and would take up an disproportionate amount of space in a printed guide. The Manual of Style may be worth a read. If you can provide any insight to the purpose of the list it would be helpful.

I also note the style of sub-heading in sections like Get In and Get Around are not as per the manual of style. I'll plunge forward and sort those out.

Once these 2 points are sorted, I suspect the style tag can go :)

(WT-en) Nrms 04:46, 9 January 2009 (EST)

A-ha! I think I get what you're after now... Effectively Surselva is a region, with sub-regions (i.e. the bold headers in the list) which then have the towns/cities (the list under the headers)?

In which case, the structure of the Surselva region needs restructuring I think... The Surselva article should list the regions, each of which would then have its own article, which would include a list of Cities. The article on the geographical hierarchy may better show what I mean.

I realise it possibly seems a little over-bureaucratic, but it helps keep things structured in a consistent way, and also helps reduce article sizes. Part of the idea of Wikivoyage is it can be accessed via mobile devices; but as many people pay by the Kb, a large article which contains much information not relevant to them is a waste of bandwidth. (Yes, you could counter that having to visit many pages may result in more data due to extra headers... Perhaps someone needs to do some playing around with the figures here ;) )

Anyway, keep up the good work. The community is here to help and guide.

(WT-en) Nrms 05:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I also notice the long list of towns in the article and wonder if you could subdivide Surselva into smaller regions, then you wouldn't need to list all the towns in one article. I have also separated the town names into their Romantish and German alternatives, as these names are easier to deal with rather than a single Romantish/German, or is it German/Romantish, name. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Presumably each of the towns wants a city template? Most of the names are in Romansch and don't have a German name. I will start creating pages for each of the places should there be further sub-regions (Ilanz, Val Lumnezia, Ruis, Disentis region,etc),or the actual towns. Does the information already on the Surselva article stay there, deleted or redistributed?(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:17, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Also could you boil down Llanz and Lugnez cities down to the 9 most important ones, that's how we organise stuff around here - seeing there's very few actual guides for the city, that shouldn't become a problem for the foreseeable future. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 02:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Eat

Also can somebody help with the Eat section for info--(WT-en) HJ.Phillips94 13:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

St Martin

In the list of regions at the beginning of the article St Martin links to the island in the caribbean, I have created a disambiguation page for St Martin, however I think it would be better for the linnk to go straight to the disambiguation page rather than the island. If somebody could help I would be happy to discuss.

I have now disambiguated St. Martin and listed it on the Saint Martin disambiguation page that somebody else had already kindly created. - (WT-en) Huttite 06:27, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Should we simplify the region hierarchy

This region article has currently 5 subregions and 9 bottom-level destination articles. Overall there is very little content. The current subdivision is based on the political divisions as of when this article was created between 2008-2010. This doesn't necessarily make sense from the traveller’s perspective and in the meantime is not even correct any more as many of the communes have merged. I suggest to get rid of all the subregions and create the following structure instead:

• Disentis as it is and merge any potential useful content from Disentis (region)
• Ilanz merge content from Falera, Ilanz (region), Ladir, Ruschein
• Laax maybe merge Sagogn here or at Illanz
• Val Lumnezia as mentioned on the talk page there, I would merge Vrin here and turn it into a bottom-level article
• Vals either as it is or renamed as Valser valley
• Safiental as it is but as bottom-level article

Ruis has almost not content, so I would just redirect it to Surselva

I think this region could gain much from this change. As it is now, there's a lot of unnecessary red links for towns too small or insignificant to deserve their own article which makes it very hard to find those destinations with actual information. By bundling them into destinations like this (Mentioning the different towns throughout the article for valley articles such as Val Lumnezia or Safiental or by putting their few sights under the Nearby section for towns like Laax, Disentis or Illanz) we can make this much more useful I think.

Any inputs on this? Drat70 (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I can see "Europe > Central Europe > Switzerland > Graubünden > Surselva > Ilanz (region) > Falera" which would be way too deep for me as a prospective visitor.

My take is that excessive hierarchy is counterproductive for reasons you have largely described, and if you can merge things up to make it more traveler relevant then I would personally support this.

That said many here take the 'every destination is sacred' view, so probably wait at least some days before doing anything. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I'll wait at least a week or so before doing any merging to see whether there is any inputs or other suggestions. Note also that I won't remove any destinations or useful information, I'd just gather them as secondary information on a article for a main destination. Drat70 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It has now been two weeks, I am now going to start merging the articles as there have not been any objections to this. Drat70 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This is now completed. Drat70 (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)