Talk:Cologne Lowland

I deleted the Stay Safe, Eat and Drink sections for they were just generalities and local information that's covered in the destination articles. In fact, the See section links to the above listed destinations... Does anyone object to removing the See section also, per policy? I think it's far more useful and interesting for travellers to write a good See-section for North Rhine-Westphalia and include details in the destination articles, than to clutter all the subregions with information that's mostly double or general. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually believe the "See" section should stay and contain a mini-guide on how to approach the Lowland and structure one's visit - will a day for each city suffice, or should I pack more than one destination in a day? Where should I go to look for museums? Same for "Eat" and "Drink" - which destinations should I visit for both (especially that "drink" covers both cafes and nightlife). PrinceGloria (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that would not overlap too much with the region article above and the destination articles below. An eat-section that tells you that large cities have more international restaurant choices is Captain Obvious advise for most of the world. I also don't think you can tell people to spend one or more days in Cologne or Bonn. Whether you're visiting Hong Kong or Sankt Augustine, anything from half a day Japanese-bus-tourists style highlight-trips to extended visits is possible. I don't know all of North Rhine-Westphalia well, but I know the Eifel (for camping and hiking trips) and the Cologne Lowland quite well, and have visited destinations in the Lower Rhine region often too. The current See-section says basically nothing except that both cities have sights. I know you are an advocate for smaller region divisions, but my concern (and personal experience in using (or actually not using)) Wikivoyage for travel planning purposes, is that information gets so diffuse that it takes too much effort to read through all of it to get a bit of an overview. Perhaps, however, you should write an example of what you mean. For the record, even if we delete some of the empty headers now, that shouldn't keep anyone from adding it when they do think they cán write a worthwhile section. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Highlighting key attractions in a region by subject I find useful, but leave the detail of the points of interest to the city articles. Something like Anglesey or Derbyshire. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant - whether this means one should devote a day, week or month is an individual decision, but the regional writeup should help one decide where to dig deeper. I am not so sure if the examples given are the best though, as I prefer prose to laundry list. Look at Belgium to see what I mean - this may not be the best one out there, but a nice example on how to guide the traveller over a large and diverse region in a few paragraphs without resorting to bullets. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand - I've written dozens of country See-sections, probably more than anyone else, including the Belgium one (for the Country surgeon Expedition). Good See-sections are vital for large regions and countries, and I much prefer the prose too. My doubt lies in the See sections for our lowest regions. In practice they have a lot of overlap with both the regions above (in this case North Rhine Westphalia and Germany) and the destinations below. My point was that, from a traveller's perspective, reading all 10 or so See-sections for our North Rhine-Westphalia regions is a lot to ask. Again, I wouldn't mind if you prove me wrong, and of course, sections can always be re-inserted. I do think Hobbitschuster is right; the current state of the articles is so poor that users will not use them, and personally I believe that will also discourage contributions. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)