Sub-regions
[edit]I think it was a bit overhasty to completely dissolve and redirect Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne-Ardenne. Now we have 18 city articles immediately under this region – far too many, considering the 7±2 rule. It should be sub-divided, and the most natural sub-regions would be the old regions, given that they still matter in terms of cultural identity and traditions (travel regions don't have to be administrative divisions). I would propose to restore the three old region articles and make this one just a rough overview article with information that is relevant to the greater region as a whole. --RJFF (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The proposal was first made in September 2016, was agreed the following January, and due to my anal and frequently-distracted way of working, the new regions only went live in October 2017. If you call that "overhasty", I'd hate to see your idea of 'slow' ;-)
- As explained in Talk:Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 7+2 doesn't apply to bottom-level regions, so is no reason by itself to initiate a split. On the other hand, the argument in favour of cultural regions is more convincing.
- The vast majority of city articles and other destinations in this region are Alsatian, so there would be no challenge creating an Alsace article. However, there is much less on the other two former regions. If you take a look at the old Lorraine and Champagne-Ardenne articles, you'll see there was very little content in either, and not many dependent articles (cities, itineraries and other destinations). New articles on them would need a lot of work if they were to be worth having. Furthermore, a Champagne-Ardenne article where Châlons-en-Champagne redlinks is ridiculous.
- So, as stated on the other talk page, if you propose to create three good new articles for each subregion with a good amount of detail (some of the more specific info in this article can be moved, but not to the extent that it is deprived of a large amount of its content), then I have no issue. If you simply propose to spread the existing info thinly across four articles, then I am strongly opposed. Subdividing for the sake of subdividing does not serve the traveller.
- It's not just that I'm proud of what I've done here with Grand-Est and the other region articles; for years most of our French region articles were poorly-written, outdated and above all largely empty of content. A couple are still that way - Pays de la Loire and Centre-Val de Loire are the worst of the worst. Since the mergers and the amount of new content that I added to each new region article, the majority of region articles are now filled out with information under every heading, and this means that they work as overview travel guides for the regions they cover. So let's build on their success and add new content to Wikivoyage, rather just continuing to move around what we've already got. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Overhasty" was obviously not meant in a serious way. I am sorry that I did not voice my reservations and ideas earlier, but I only became aware of your project to re-organise the geographical hierarchy of France when it was nearly done. So, you weren't hasty, but I am quite late. Nevertheless, in a wiki, that is by definition ever-changing, it is never too late.
- Arguing that this region is bottom-level, in a discussion on whether to subdivide it, is a circular argument (It's a bottom-level region, so we don't have to subdivide it, therefore it's a bottom-level region). The question is: should it be a bottom-level region? The 7 ± 2 rule is indeed a guideline (in the sense of a rule-of-thumb, not a fix regulation) that helps to decide whether a region should be divided further (see WV:Geographical hierarchy#Dividing geographical units). So it is relevant to this discussion. Moreover, there is the traveller comes first argument: many travellers still view Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne as separate travel regions, for traditional and cultural reasons and indeed there are still three separate regional tourism association: [1], [2], [3].
- I believe that the new region is too bulky for a bottom-level region. Travellers may be overwhelmed with possibly irrelevant information if they want to focus on only one part of the region (to me, e.g. Alsace or Burgundy alone easily warrant a two-weeks tour each). Much of the information in, say, the "Eat" section only relates to the respective sub-regions, not to Grand-Est as a whole. Information on "getting in" also strongly depends on where exactly you are going, e.g. Strasbourg or Mulhouse airports are not really an option for someone heading to the Reims or Troyes area (instead they would use one of the Paris airports). Luxembourg airport may be an interesting option for those heading for Lorraine, but not the other sub-regions.
- Unfortunately, while I have visited Alsace repeatedly, I have little knowledge of Lorraine or Champagne-Ardenne, so I am afraid I cannot author great articles about them. Alas, Wikivoyage's geographical hierarchy system does not allow the creation of just one sub-region (e.g. Alsace) unless the whole area is covered with sub-regions. But I have to disagree with you in one point: I think stubby articles do no harm. To the opposite: they may be seen as an invitation to add more content, even if it takes some time until someone finally attends to them. (Finding empty article sceletons about places I knew quite well was my reason to start editing Wikivoyage in the first place). Therefore, I still think we should restore the sub-regions, even in an incomplete state. --RJFF (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience, and sorry for the delay in replying. As stated above, I am not against subdivision on principle, so further argument isn't needed to convince me of its necessity. On reflection, it was unreasonable of me to expect perfection from the subregion articles; you're quite right that WV is work in progress, and that short articles (specifically outlines, not useless stubs), are better than nothing. However, I would urge you not to simply 'restore' the articles as they were, but to put effort in to making them better, even if that's just copy-editing outdated and bad info, and making sure there isn't substantial word-for-word duplication of Grand-Est; as pointed out on Talk:Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, this article used the three old articles' content as its starting point.
- Furthermore, I don't think it's unreasonable to stand firm on the dilution of the existing articles. Apart from bits that really do suit the subregions better (the 'Get in' and 'Eat' sections that you point out are overly burdened with local specifics, plus the Lalique and Musée CDG listings in 'See' stand out), I do not think the contents of this article or those of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté should be substantially reduced in order to facilitate the growth of sub-region articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello all and @Ikan Kekek
- Thank you for pointing this discussion out. I want to clarify that I did not intend to engage in any kind of edit war. My objective is not to recreate the former subregion articles, but simply to improve the map by ensuring that the departments of Grand Est are properly represented with their names and locations. As this discussion post has been inactive for quite some time, I figured I'd take some initiative in working on the map.I recognize that consistency across
- Wikivoyage is important, and that simply editing the map without listing the departments might look incomplete compared to other regional pages. My proposal, therefore, is to focus only on the cartographic accuracy of the map, leaving the broader structure of the article intact. I believe this would provide travelers with clearer geographical orientation while avoiding the content-splitting issues raised in the earlier discussion.
- I would appreciate the community’s input on whether this limited map edit would be an acceptable compromise. Thank you for your time and for helping to keep the process collaborative. Li12f12 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine, but does it need a "Departements" section? Also, do you think it would in fact be a good idea to subdivide this big region, and what do you see as the pros and cons of that? For example, if we did do that, how many "Cities" and "Other destinations" are in each departement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly believe it does need a Departments section, this is a massive and populated region in France. Throughout Wikivoyage, such large regions are seldom taken whole. I would refer you to the regions of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna in Italy; Andalusia in Spain; and, Occitaine, Centre-Val-de-Loire, and Nouvelle-Aquitaine in France. I am not saying we need an entire new page for each of the departments, I would have us do what was done in the Centre-Val-de-Loire page. We would just add the list of departments to reflect the areas on the map on the page. I would urge people to zoom into the area of Vosges and Haut-Rhin, we have a lot of marks on the map with little clarification on which department one would find them in. To answer your second question, there is no need to put a quota of how many cities and other destinations in each department becuase they are keeping their independent lists (see Centre-Val-de-Loire). Grand Est is quite a historic region and home to a great deal of historic places, we would be remiss if we downplay the importance of sucha region in France. Li12f12 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- My issue with such a section is that if you use the regionlist template, it will look like a list of regions that should have separate articles. Typing out a list of departements and describing them would be uncontroversial. Part of the problem with your edits is that the list of departements looked terrible (no offense). If anyone would like to click "edit" on the left side of this difference and then "show preview", they'll see what I mean. This version was even worse, as the map also looked terrible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I agree with you 100% there, I was only uploading so I can see how it was coming out as the map and list were not auto-editing. Hence why I labeled my edits as WIP. I was about to make final changes when we began corresponding. Li12f12 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am just a beginner in wiki-editing. If there is an efficient way to make edits to these maps and lists and see the live changes to them without having to upload the WIP edits, I would greatly appreciate you pointing it out to me. I would also like to point out that the map and list on Centre-Val-de-Loire was done by me as well and thay is what I wanted the finished product of Grand Est to look like. Li12f12 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- That map looks OK. I approve, and the Departments list looks fine, so making similar edits here should be fine, too.
- One tip: Everything is always a work in progress on this site, but if you want to try an initial edit that looks bad, put it in a sandbox subpage of your user page that you create, such as User:Li12f12/sandbox. That way, people patrolling recent changes to Wikivoyage articles won't be alarmed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thank you. I will pre-prep my edit then in my sandbox. Li12f12 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will say that if the results of your edits had looked like the departments list and map at Centre-Val-de-Loire, I think they would have been uncontroversial, and I think you can just wait a couple of days for any comments and make them. Creating links for the departments is what would require consensus, and as I've said, dividing this article into subregions might be a good idea but needs a detailed proposal that includes the number of city and other destination articles per department. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thank you. I will pre-prep my edit then in my sandbox. Li12f12 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- My issue with such a section is that if you use the regionlist template, it will look like a list of regions that should have separate articles. Typing out a list of departements and describing them would be uncontroversial. Part of the problem with your edits is that the list of departements looked terrible (no offense). If anyone would like to click "edit" on the left side of this difference and then "show preview", they'll see what I mean. This version was even worse, as the map also looked terrible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly believe it does need a Departments section, this is a massive and populated region in France. Throughout Wikivoyage, such large regions are seldom taken whole. I would refer you to the regions of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna in Italy; Andalusia in Spain; and, Occitaine, Centre-Val-de-Loire, and Nouvelle-Aquitaine in France. I am not saying we need an entire new page for each of the departments, I would have us do what was done in the Centre-Val-de-Loire page. We would just add the list of departments to reflect the areas on the map on the page. I would urge people to zoom into the area of Vosges and Haut-Rhin, we have a lot of marks on the map with little clarification on which department one would find them in. To answer your second question, there is no need to put a quota of how many cities and other destinations in each department becuase they are keeping their independent lists (see Centre-Val-de-Loire). Grand Est is quite a historic region and home to a great deal of historic places, we would be remiss if we downplay the importance of sucha region in France. Li12f12 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine, but does it need a "Departements" section? Also, do you think it would in fact be a good idea to subdivide this big region, and what do you see as the pros and cons of that? For example, if we did do that, how many "Cities" and "Other destinations" are in each departement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Sub-regions, again
[edit]Following the discussion above, I would like to reopen the discussion about breaking thus article up as it now has 23 city articles. It would be easier to navigate if it were split up. Following the pre-2014 administrative regions seems to make most sense for historical and cultural reasons:
- Alsace -- 12 city articles
- Lorraine -- 7 articles
- Champagne-Ardenne -- 4 city articles
I am willing to implement this proposal, and to flesh out the new sub-regions articles to address the concerns that led to the 2017 amalgamation of these articles, as I did when I restructured the Brittany and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté regions earlier this year. Li12f12's new map will make this project easier. @ThunderingTyphoons!, RJFF: Ground Zero (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I wouldn't mind editing the map to reflect the changes to the page. I think we would need more research on the departments of Ardennes and Haut-Marne. We currently have no pages for the larger population centers of the departments but there is most definitely things to see. In the region list, I have already included some points of interest. I don't know where to start in creating a new page from scratch, so unless anyone here knows how I suggest maybe bringing in a mod. Li12f12 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- A good model if we want to use intermediate level of subdivisions, I say we maybe follow the style of Lombardy. Li12f12 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The sub-regions look like this, without Franche-Comté. Ground Zero (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your comments and offer! Is there an issue peculiar to Franche-Comté? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's now part of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region. This map is an old map. I am not clever enough to create static maps. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I see. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's now part of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region. This map is an old map. I am not clever enough to create static maps. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I have started this project, and will fill in more over the coming days. Ground Zero (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. You've done a lot of work already! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I plowed through the work I wanted to do, and am finished now. It would be helpful if others (@Li12f12:) could undertake research on the departments of Ardennes and Haut-Marne. To create a new article, just add a link to the city or town's name in the list of cities on the appropriate region article, then click on the link to open a new page. You can find a list of article templates here. Don't worry about making mistakes -- I'll watch your work and help out where needed. Ground Zero (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Howdy, I will try to find some stuff. I will try my best at making an article, will do some research on some of the more thorough city/town pages. Li12f12 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Problem, I don't know how to create a new city page. I tried by just linking [[Sedan]] but it linked me to a random town in SE Kansas, USA. I have some research done to begin working on the French Sedan's page but need help creating. Would one of you mind to expand further than How to start a new page page does? Thanks Li12f12 (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. That doesn't happen that often. Bad luck on your first try. Sedan (France) will work, though. Ground Zero (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- I plowed through the work I wanted to do, and am finished now. It would be helpful if others (@Li12f12:) could undertake research on the departments of Ardennes and Haut-Marne. To create a new article, just add a link to the city or town's name in the list of cities on the appropriate region article, then click on the link to open a new page. You can find a list of article templates here. Don't worry about making mistakes -- I'll watch your work and help out where needed. Ground Zero (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)