Talk:Alkmaar

Wow, there sure is a lot of info in here! I'm wondering if, besides a lot of detail work needed to bring this in line with the MoS, if the Get Out section needs to be split into several individual guides-- or are all those places really only day trips from Alkmaar? (WT-en) Majnoona 13:18, 5 March 2006 (EST)

Considering that entire cities have no article, and that many Netherlands articles are miserable stubs, separate articles for villages around Alkmaar would be odd. They are not even 'day trips', the bus to Bergen takes 12 minutes.(WT-en) Wesopa 06:16, 6 March 2006 (EST)


 * Hey Wesopa, the Alkmaar article looks great. However, if there is too much information on one page, readers get overwhelmed. Is it possible to set up individual pages for the villages, while retaining a link to the 'get out' section of the Alkmaar page? Bergen, I know is a pretty village, with dunes and nice coffee shops. Certainly that place has enough attractions for a small city template. Please give it some thought. Thanks. (WT-en) WindHorse 6 March 06


 * I'm not sure I can agree with that unless there's someplace to sleep in Bergen. I'm really strongly in favor of the 1 destination == 1 article rule that we've been following up until now.  So, if it can have a sleep section make an article for it, if not don't. -- (WT-en) Mark 06:40, 6 March 2006 (EST)
 * Like (almost) every sea-side village in Europe, Bergen can offer accommodation. Furthermore, the article is is great, but really bottom heavy. The 'get out' section constitutes about half of the information. Like large cities, I personally feel that small destinations that have many villages with sites of interest nearby should be candidates for splitting. Otherwise, how do we set up the listings for the hotels, cafes and 'get in' info for these out of town places in way that others can contribute later - just my humble opinion  (WT-en) WindHorse 6 March 06


 * Easy. Bergen has a Sleep section, therefore it is a destination.  Go ahead and break it out. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:35, 6 March 2006 (EST)


 * Thanks, Mark. That's the kind of answer I like - simple. I've split of Bergen. The other villages mentioned in the 'get out' section also have accommodation, but as there are three with the same name (inner, outer and whatever), I'll leave it to others more familar with the area to do the honors of splitting them from the main article. (WT-en) WindHorse 6 March 06

Certainly Bergen has a Sleep section, but that it is because it is an entirely different place - the city of Bergen in Norway. The Guide article criteria say that a guide article should include information on where to go from the destination. They also suggest a guide article should tell you how to spend several days at the destination, which in this case must include the surroundings.

The split has only added another stub (with essential information missing), while the Alkmaar and Amsterdam articles are the only useful Netherlands articles. The 'place-to-sleep' criteria would create 10 to 20 separate articles for around Alkmaar, some for hamlets with perhaps 250 inhabitants. So unless there is a better reason, the Bergen section should go back in the Alkmaar article.(WT-en) Wesopa 05:49, 7 March 2006 (EST)


 * He moved the content to Bergen (Netherlands) which is the disambiguated form. This Bergen does diserve its own guide, since it has a sleep section, if you don't like the fact that it's a stub then please plunge forward and add some more content to make it a guide or maybe even a star.  If we don't make a Bergen (Netherlands) article then it can't ever be a guide or a star, now can it?


 * If you really think Bergen doesn't deserve its own article then I suppose you could try putting the article up for Project:Votes for deletion, but I guarantee that there will be strong opposition. -- (WT-en) Mark 06:25, 7 March 2006 (EST)

One good article better than 10 stubs
The Bergen article has no information on how to get there, it has no entry in the Sleep section, just the name of a hotel without any further details. Other sections are empty, even with the minumum template. Also, the Schoorl reserve info has been moved there, although the addres and entrance described are in fact in Schoorl.

You should not split an article, if all you can create is an unusable stub. There is no objection in principle to Bergen having a separate article, the point is that it does not have an article at present - just a stub. The information in the Alkmaar article is adequate, and it is one of the two adequate articles on the Netherlands. That won't change in the next few months. Meanwhile, one good article is better than 10 stubs.(WT-en) Wesopa 05:28, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I put back some basic info on Bergen as destination - that is the purpose of a Get Out section. I re-entered the Schoorl reserve info, and noted that it is west of Schoorl (different bus line). So now the Bergen article can be upgraded on its own, although I would bet it is still a stub in summer.(WT-en) Wesopa 05:44, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * Bergen is not a stub, it's an outline. You seem to be working with Wikipedia-like rules for splitting an article, but we do things a little differently here.  This is because we have a goal to make a complete world travel guide, with guides for every destination our users can think of.


 * To my mind it is better to have more complete articles, and not articles which try to jam two destinations into one guide. The Get out section is not for detailed info about nearby destinations, but rather for info about getting out of the destination you are in, with one or at most two sentences about nearby destinations.  If you don't believe me check out the Project:Manual of style. -- (WT-en) Mark 06:51, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * One more pointer: Check out Paris as an example of what the Get out section normally should look like.  -- (WT-en) Mark 07:52, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Alkmaar is not Paris. You can't compare Versailles and Chartres to small villages with one campsite. I have no objection to people writing articles on all these villages, but they don't, and they won't. So now there is a stub for Bergen (not an outline), which doesn't even tell you how to get there (and it says the village is on the North Sea, which it isn't). If Wikivoyage guidelines say this is an improvement, then the guidelines need changing.(WT-en) Wesopa 10:56, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * If the place is too small to sleep in (the usual rule of thumb for our destinations), then keep in Alkmaar -- but it must go in See or Do, not Get out. Get out means "where should you go next", with a list of interesting options, the idea being that the traveller picks one, continues there and doesn't come back. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:05, 8 March 2006 (EST)


 * Wesopa, while you're at it, consider fixing up the Bergen article (which is an outline, as it has the sections there to be filled out, in our definition an article is a stub if it doesn't have those) since you clearly know enough about Bergen to fix it. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:57, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I looked at the list in Project:Geographical_hierarchy and it doesn't include villages anyway.(WT-en) Wesopa 05:49, 9 March 2006 (EST)


 * For Wikivoyage's purposes, any place with places to sleep is a "city". I've clarified the wording in the article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:41, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Sections moved
So, now everything is in the correct section, as suggested, and the Get Out section just lists onward destinations, as suggested. The article is long, but no longer than many other Guide articles. Most Star articles seem to be over the limit as well.(WT-en) Wesopa 05:35, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Alkmaar bicycle
Sure the photo is "Alkmaar bicycle" ? It looks like the text is for an old file. --MGA73 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mill image
Wrong image is linked to illustrate the windmills. Downtowngal (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Some of our images accidentally got a bit mixed up. I've removed them until I can find the originals or some suitable replacements. &mdash;Ruud 09:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)