Talk:Northern Germany

Comments on the usefulness of the content added

 * 1) History - it is not true that the region was under Prussian administration, as Meckenburg, Bremen and Hamburg, three very important parts of the region, remained independent. In fact, the purported "region" here had very different history, and seeking common denominators results in having to list a number of exceptions - the only common denominators that are actually common are common for the whole of Germany. The fact that those territories have been Protestant while the South of Germany remained Catholic can, should and is discussed in the general article for Germany. Discussion on how the different parts of Northern Germany had sometimes similar and sometimes different history can be interesting for historians and perhaps even make for an interesting Wikipedia article, but is irrelevant for the tourist. The tourist should know that Hamburg and Bremen had a very different history from the rest of the regions and why they are separate states, how Lower Saxony is actually an amalgamation of lands with different historical backgrounds etc., but this is best discussed in their separate articles, not trying to cobble together a "common history of Northern German lands" in one short Wikivoyage passage.
 * 2) Talk (now mixed with history in "Understand") - dialects of Plattdeutsch remain prevalent in the region, but the range of Plattdeutsch is wider and includes the territory of NRW and Brandenburg, for instance. The Plattdeutsch/Hochdeutsch division does not really follow current administrative, historic or geographic boundaries, as it is older than most of the recent history that shaped Germany as we now know it and can visit, and should be better discussed in the general article for Germany
 * 3) Get in is a hodgepodge now and can never be very useful, as it is very different to arrive in Mecklenburg than in Lower Saxony. Landing in Hannover is not any better for getting to Rostock than landing in Berlin. Suggesting to the traveller than arriving in "Northern Germany" will be enough for them to conveniently visit the region is misinformation. Discussing in detail how different airports, motorways, railway and ferry connections are useful for various parts of Northern Germany will be better handled in articles for individual destinations.
 * 4) Get around is very brief and general now, and whatever's said there is true to most of Germany - Deutsche Bahn is quite good, but you can go by car reasonably well too. Not much of value to the traveller.
 * 5) See - this is a nice walkthrough of the most important highlights of the region but when you single them out, they are already mentioned in the general article for Germany, mostly. And if they aren't, they should. I see no benefit of stating to the traveller that there are East Frisian Islands and the Mecklenburg Lake District under the same breath, as visiting them together is as convenient to organize as trying to visit Bondensee and Berlin in one go - possible, but not really the most convenient thing to do.
 * 6) Do - you can walk and cycle and there is a long distance walking path. How is this not true for the entirety of Germany, with more detail possible only when you "zoom" on a particular sub-region, such as Harz Mountains or Mecklenburg Lake Region? I don't know why only E11 was mentioned and the E9 not, especially that E11 goes through much of Germany that is NOT a part of Northern Germany as per this article. I would discuss general stuff pertaining to "cycling in Germany" in the general German article (as it isn't very different depending on latitude), and the walking routes also there under one of the things to "Do".
 * 7) Eat - cuisine, or more specifically Birnen, Bohnen und Speck, is indeed what Northern German lands have in common, but this can, and is, discussed in the main German article. I would go on a limb and suggest we may want to have a separate Cuisine of Germany article due to the general variety of local foods found throughout the country. This might be the section that is most coherent and really valuable to the traveller, but I wouldn't say it helps the traveller enough to merit a separate article for Northern Germany.
 * 8) Drink - Germans drink beer, but they also drink coffee, but some drink tea and there are regional spirits. True for the entirety of Germany. The traveller doesn't gain much here.

In short, I believe all that the region has in common, which does not hold true for other regions of Germany, is 1) beaches 2) hanseatic port cities and 3) Birnen, Bohnen und Speck. The first two are quite evident if one looks at the map - it's hard to find a beach or a seaport in the mountains. The third one is a very interesting thing, but we do not an article to discuss that. Otherwise, the article is borderline misleading and can make one believe that combining a visit to Lower Saxony with Mecklenburg is a natural and easy thing to do, more so than either with Berlin, NRW or Hesse, which is not the case.

I appreciate the effort that went into expanding this article, but it all ultimately proves my original point that the content that we can put into those articles is either true for entire Germany, or has to broken down per Bundeslaender and therefore is better discussed there. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a German expatriate living in Glasgow, I believe that Globe-trotter did an excellent job in showing very clearly why the artificial and misleading-to-visitors "regions" of Northern Germany, Western Germany, Central Germany, Eastern Germany and Southern Germany should be deleted forthwith. Kudos to Globe-trotter for reducing the cringe factor of this article, but it is literally a waste of time for any traveller to waste even a moment reading those now we have our own dynamic maps and travel between these entirely misleading "regions" is so quick and easy. Without prejudice to real travel regions that overlap Bundesländer (such as Middle Rhine Valley which spans North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse and currently presents problems for our breadcrumb trail in not allowing more than one breadcrumb trail) they should be deleted without a misleading re-direct (if a re-direct is insisted upon, it should be to the country article of Germany) - fortunately there is almost invariably no useful content to merge. Discussion of this very point has been ongoing at Talk:Germany. --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with PrinceGloria. We have got a lot of well-written, but absolutely redundant text. There is no problem to keep it in Wikivoyage, but I honestly do not see why we need it and who can make use of it. --Alexander (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)