Talk:Zeeland

I've added some information on the get in and get around section. I also removed some of the info about Veerse meer since it was mentioned 3 times, including in the introduction (my earlier edits were reverted). I also removed the info on bicycle baths around Middelburg and Veerse Meer since there is nothing realy special about that, because the whole province has bicycle paths along dikes, waters etc incl Oosterschelde. There should be a website with information on bicycle routes in Zeeland, I'll try to find it and link to it in the near future. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 17:54, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Recently added regions
I'm not convinced the recently added regions-list is what we should be aiming for. It looks like these six regions are far too many subregions at this point, making it harder for users to navigate. The nine previously linked cities weren't even all blue links. Most of the regions now only have a few destinations under them. Tholen is linked as a subregion but the article is a city article for Tholen (city). Noord-Beveland is now listed as a region too, but is, in reality, a municipality with some 7000 inhabitants and no specific interest to travellers. Of course we need to be flexible with rural areas, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to create regions with no real destinations within, I think. I understand that this division seems natural because of the islands, and the map looks nice this way, but I don't think we're serving the traveller... JuliasTravels (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Julias, I totally get where you're coming from - in fact, I'm not that sure of the regions myself. I may very well rework the regions to be no more than three: 1) Schouwen-Duiveland and Tholen, 2)Greater Beveland (Noord-, Zuid-Beveland and Walcheren) and 3) Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. I've got about a week to my disposal right now to work on these articles, and I was planning to take the same approach as ErwinFCG took when adding to Groningen. The regions, in short, are ahead of their time. Coming back to the tree-region system I mentioned: If you don't have a car to your disposal, then this system can be useful to a traveller, as the option to travel from any island/peninsula to another are very limited. I've got other alternative options as well:
 * Merge Walcheren and Noord-Beveland.
 * Merge Noord- and Zuid-Beveland (namewise, the better option of these first two).
 * Merge Schouwen-Duiveland and Tholen.
 * All of the above (three-region system described above).
 * I think that, with the right amount of care, the current system may very well work fine, but I am fine with defining the regions to be larger. I'll add the Template:Regions discussion to the mainspace to get people to come here and join in on this. -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Small update: I've worked out what I decided on for the final lay-out, feedback is appreciated as always :) -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough to offer an opinion about the (sub)regional divisions, but I would hope we could have a better map that includes towns in it. Is there water between the 3 regions, or are they separated as some kind of visual aid (which I'd consider unfortunate and less helpful to the traveler). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not at all mind that you can't offer an opinion on the divisions, though, as a regular visitor of Zeeland, I can say that the 3-region division is the better option. As a visitor to Zeeland, one does not go from one of these sub-regions to another that fast. As for the map, I'll see if I can trace down anyone willing to make me a better map - I am not at all experienced enough to make a good map. As for the separation of regions:
 * The east border of Tholen is the Scheldt-Rhine Canal, I believe at least three major bridges cross it.
 * Walcheren and Zuid-Beveland are not divided by a body of water, instead, Reimerswaal's west border is a canal.
 * Directly west of Terneuzen is a canal that connects to Ghent.
 * Zeeuws-Vlaanderen is in theory an exclave of the Netherlands (borders the Scheldt and Belgium). A tunnel is made to connect it to the mainland though.
 * Midden-Zeeland is disconnected from the mainland by a canal at its most eastern point.
 * The three regions are indeed disconnected, see this link to Google Maps
 * There aren't any major problems when travelling from point to point. The existing bridges do a good enough job of connecting the islands and peninsulas, the only real exception being Tholen, which can only be reached from Schouwen-Duiveland and North Brabant. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I seem negative; I do appreciate you efforts to improve the Dutch articles. The issue is that you seem to be looking at this from the wrong angle. You are rather focussed on creating sub-regions (not only here, but also for Luxembourg and Gelderland, for example), while we try to create regions only when we need them to avoid overcrowding of articles. I think you should first identify which destination articles you deem useful, and should focus on first filling the existing articles. You also seem to be a bit confused about what regions are. In the example of Gelderland, you've created a region map with only one region article; Achterhoek. The Achterhoek example, however, is not a good one; you've treated it as a destination article rather than a region. You've included listings of establishments in towns with articles of their own, which are child-articles of the Achterhoek article. That's not right. You've added a lot of text about routes and, but only little of it is actually an addition to the information that was or at least should be in the city articles for Zutphen, Doetinchem etc. When there's only limited extra information, like a few sights or activities in nearby villages, it makes more sense to add that information to the nearest city or to the higher region than create a complete subregion structure. Now, there's a region structure of very limited use to travellers in the Gelderland article, and you've moved on to another province. I'm afraid the same will happen here. Therefore, I ask that we take a step back and focus on the actual quality content, deciding on regions from there, to avoid more empty shells. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * One more remark; Towns like Vlissingen and Zierikzee should keep articles of their own, imho. They are well-known, touristic towns and it's easy enough to fill their articles, especially when you include some of the neighbouring hamlets or villages. They may not be large in terms of permanent inhabitants, but they are clearly destinations in their own right. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that your reply isn't intended as being negative, neither is mine - The way I work is the way I work. I know that it isn't the standard way of working, but it works for me. I'd like to have you know that the Achterhoek is one of the first articles I ever edited here, and I've never really adjusted it - perhaps because no-one called me out on it, but no-one has to do so either. I'll have to figure out what to do with that article someday soon. Luxembourg, well, yes, I did sort of work regions-first, but in my defence, this only applies to the Mullerthal. As for the rest of Luxembourg, I worked lowest level first, and planned ahead for regions once I saw the main article getting somewhat crowded. As for the structure of the Mullerthal article, yes, it contains information that should be included in lower levels though, in my defence, I had to abandon the development of Luxembourg due to school and work.
 * I guess I'll push myself to improve the Achterhoek and Luxembourg articles this week, and get back to Zeeland later. One thing's first though, I'm currently teaching myself how to create maps, and I plan to make a proper map for Zeeland before doing anything else. Articles are never finished on a wiki, but my region articles definitely are no-where near finished. I haven't given up hope for them yet. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean you have to finish those articles first; I just wanted to point out that it is easy enough to create region lists, but much harder to fill them properly. That's why our policy says "we only add a level of regions when there are too many cities or too much content in the existing breakdown". Proceed with whatever area you prefer :-) For now, I've restored the city list (a region list doesn't need to replace a city list, except in the case of Groningen, where it is really a "cities and rural areas"-list. ). The major difference with Groningen is, however, that Zeeland is very touristic and even small towns like Bruinisse or Cadzand draw considerable crowds in summer and have quite many facilities. For clarity, we should maybe add the destination articles you think should be added, so we get a better idea of how much "extra" content there will be. I'm thinking Noord-Beveland, Domburg and whatever else you had in mind. We can add the region list when we have found a division that works. The map is not a starting point, especially not when we require the help of others to create it. There should first be a clear consensus on what the regions will be and which cities need to be on the map, to avoid double work. I'm tempted to say that the division in three might work, but extra sub-regions like Walcheren or Schouwen-Duiveland under those should be avoided. Of course we can mention those names in articles for North, Middle and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, for explanation, but it seems better to list the cities directly under North, Middle and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. Otherwise, you'd actually be inserting two extra region levels instead of one, and that's just too much. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to finish those articles at some point - waiting months for someone to do it for me isn't an option if you'd ask me. I've updated User:Wauteurz/Zeeland to have a full list of what I think should be added. Noord-Beveland, for one, already exists. As for Westkapelle and Domburg, I meant to get them all included in an article for Sluis (= West Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), but leaving them as separate articles because they're popular destinations is a valid reason to not merge them. As for the three-region system: I did not intend on further sub-dividing Walcheren and Schouwen-Duiveland. The cities in those regions can be listed alongside them. Their listings wouldn't be listed in the region article, but they would be referenced in Go next. The addition of two extra regions is something I thought about briefly, but gave up on rather fast. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly; do you mean you want to get rid of the articles for Walcheren and Schouwen-Duiveland now? They are region articles at this moment. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is not that I plan to remove Walcheren and Schouwen-Duiveland. The only difference with what I planned is that they can't be regions of their own. They indeed are regions and should probably remain that way. What I think I wanted to describe above was that I had planned to make the two bottom-level articles, merging the existing city and town articles into them, but at the moment, I see no reason to carry on with that. At the moment, the best way to use them is to have them exist at the same level as cities in that region, and use the articles of Walcheren and Schouwen-Duiveland to contain the towns and townships around these cities (ie. the remainder of the regions). I hope that cleared it up.
 * Also, I'll update the Regions back-up with the map I made (see image on the right) as well as the three-region system. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to have Walcheren and Schouwen-Duiveland at the same level as the cities, only to include listings in hamlets or villages without an article. I think it will be confusing for people who know a little about the region and know that Walcheren is a peninsula with several cities like Middelburg and Vlissingen - which have articles of their own. It seems better to just explain the names of the islands in the understand section of Zeeland, but not use them as articles, and include information about townships in the articles for the nearest cities. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that solution. To do a proper summary of that:
 * First/top level: Zeeland. Second level: Midden-Zeeland (+ North Zeeland, Zeeuws-Vlaanderen). Third/bottom level: Within Midden-Zeeland: (Domburg?), Middelburg, Vlissingen, Westkapelle - do away with Walcheren.
 * That's what I think we have come down to - correct me if I'm wrong. As for North Zeeland and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen: Can we just keep those two as they are with Zeeuws-Vlaanderen being devided in three regions which are also its municipalities (+ Saeftinghe) and North being devided in Tholen and Schouwen-Duiveland? I personally think that the above may apply to Schouwen-Duiveland as well. -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that could work, since Schouwen-Duiveland (unlike Walcheren) is a single municipality. It would then not be a region article, but a destination article incorporating Zierikzee and Burgh-Haamstede (which would then become redirects). If the Schouwen-Duiveland ever gets too crowded, we can always choose to divide it up in individual articles, but I don't think that will need to happen any time soon. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Taken from article
Zeeland is located on several islands, peninsulas and coastline land masses surrounding the massive delta of the confluence of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. The island of Walcheren is the heart of the region.

To be included
Zeeland is located on several islands, peninsulas and coastline land masses surrounding the massive delta of the confluence of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. The island of Walcheren is the heart of the region.