Talk:Münsterland

VFD discussion
An incredibly empty outline article, that contains nothing more then the generic lead and a list of three cities (which until pretty much now was just two cities). I cannot see any purpose of this article other than fitting with a regional hierarchy that may or may not need an overhaul. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think the subregions of North Rhine-Westphalia need to be consolidated or reorganized, then the thing to do is come up with a new district scheme and try to gain consensus for it at that article's Talk page. Until then, if the existing consensus favors a certain regional breakdown, then ipso facto it also favors the existence of all respective region articles, regardless of content or lack thereof. IMO region articles (other than extraregions) should be considered delete- and redirect-proof. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at talk:North Rhine-Westphalia. The talk page is filled with almost nothing but region discussions. Largely inconclusive, unfortunately. And regions have been redirected in the past. Especially for German destinations. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. As Andre noted, VFD isn't the place for region discussions.  If the article doesn't fit in the hierarchy then redirect it, but I don't see a justification for deletion. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Exactly. Region articles can be redirected, but as long as the region is genuine, a deletion would be inappropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for all the above mentioned reasons. This nomination is suprising. Even if a vfd would be appropriate to begin with, it would still require a new region division, or, in case you'd like to abandon the North Rhine-Westphalia regions entirely, a hierarchy solution for the underlying destination articles. You make it sound as if this is a last resort, as if long discussions have been inconclusive, but on the talk page I see only a single suggestion about consolidation since 2010... Why not simply propose a different and better region division? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that those discussions never drew enough eyeballs to get any result. In my count there were three inconclusive attempts, including the current one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Speedy keep -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 05:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Adapting to en-WV style
First of all, a big thank you to User:RJFF for greatly expanding this article, it now contains a lot of redlinks and things that - hey it's my biased opinion - may be totally irrelevant to our international readers. So how should we proceed? Usually we don't list every last monastery or church in region articles just because they are there, unless they have something interesting to them. Or is it I who am mistaken here? At any rate, this is much better than the article was when I put it up for vfd, so a big thank you once again. Let's hope we can build on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Actually I have tried to list not "every last monastery", but just the most notable sights of the region. So I cannot agree that they may be "totally irrelevant to our international readers". If someone—be they domestic or international travellers—chooses to go to Münsterland, they will mostly encounter old castles and monasteries/churches, because these are the main sights. If you don't like castles, you probably should not go there. Just like you probably shouldn't go to upcountry Thailand or Burma if you find Buddhist temples boring. But I think I see what you mean with "adapting to en-WV style": region articles should not contain full listings of sights but rather an overview. The problem is that there are hardly any articles about the respective towns where the individual sights could be listed (and many of the Münsterland sights are actually castles or manors in the countryside, not really belonging to any town). That's why I was tempted to list them here, in the region article.


 * By the way, could you please check my additions for grammar and style and correct them if necessary? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a shot at the grammar and style. I am not a native speaker, so there may well be things I missed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)