Talk:Achterhoek

No, this region does not "deserve" its own page

We create new subregional divisions when the original region has more than 9 cities. Otherwise adding regional levels is superfluous. Please feel free to create meaningful guides to additional destinations in Gelderland and we will see however many we have and how to split them into subregions if necessary. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to request this page to stay up for some more time, so I can work on fixing the lack of pages to link to. I will be translating them soon.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I certainly hope this will result in something much more worthwhile than the two city articles you just added. This is a whole lot of information you probably translated, but this is not a very useful guide until we add more information on the POIs and, in general, on the destination. We are not the VVV and we don't need to cover each and every municipality - it's better to focus on fewer, quality guides, and work slower.

You can always add destination to the Gelderland article. For now, I'd focus on improving the existing guides to see if we really can add quality or just focus on ticking off every municipality around with a bare-minmum, skeleton guide. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of it is just bare translation, yes, though for cities like Lochem, I am trying to add some additional information about the 66 Rijksmonumenten and 12 War monuments it has, as that is what makes the city worth visiting. I'm not planning to add all of the municipalities either, I am just of the opinion that the Achterhoek deserves a bit more representation here, as the region will fit well with many people (whether they like hiking, biking, landscapes or culture). I don't have all the time in the world on my hands, but I'll come a long way in translating the cities listed under 'Cities' (Doetinchem, Aalten, Groenlo, Hengelo (Gelderland), Lochem, Ruurlo, Vorden, Winterswijk and Zutphen), which is what I'd like to reach eventually.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Then please don't, the Dutch articles on those are below-par, no point in doing that. I'd rather consider creating a comprehensive guide to Achterhoek. Also note what User:JuliasTravels commented on the rijksmonumenten. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll put the development of further articles on hold for now, I'd like to refer to Talk:Lochem for the reasoning why. I'd rather wait for us to figure out the best way to index all articles, instead of making the pages and having them deleted/worked into another article completely shortly after. I've posted my idea for how to index the subpages to the Achterhoek/Gelderland on the Talk Page of Lochem, but I am in favor of moving that discussion here or to Talk:Gelderland.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Let us focus on generating quality content here - once we have content, we usually figure out a quick way to organize it. I'd say with your local knowledge of Achterhoek to enhance this article for starters. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

To say that I have a good knowledge of the whole of the Achterhoek would be an overstatement, but I'll see what I can add. I'll put development of the pages for the Achterhoek cities on hold until further notice.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Or actually, perhaps a guide to the entirety of Achterhoek

It does not seem that this region is filled with destinations drawing particularly large crowds, and there are reasons for that. I guess most travellers would come to Achterhoek to enjoy the region as such, its nature and perhaps plot their biking paths around the monuments sprinkled around. I was wondering if the traveller wouldn't be served better with a comprehensive guide to Achterhoek rather than repetitive and boring guides to every municipality, enummerating every geementelijke monument and listing train and bus connections, as well as a list of every cafe in town pasted from somewhere.

I am not sure I will be able to join the effort immediately as I will probably be devoting all my free time to North Brabant given that this is the region I (re)visit this year, but I will be happy to lend a hand in the longer run. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Subpages for monuments in the Achterhoek

As found out when listing war monuments and Rijksmonumenten for Lochem, the Achterhoek has quite a large amount of all sorts of monuments (According to the Dutch Wikipedia these are 123 war monuments, 1233 Rijksmonumenten, etcetera). I have no idea whether or not we should index these on a page (i.e. make a new page: Monuments in the Achterhoek), incorportate the most notable ones on this page, or just leave them out completely. I won't start anything related to them for now, at this stage leaving them out may just be better.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not list them all in a destination article, but just highlight a few of the more interesting and notable ones. If you think visiting a large number of these is something people would be interested in doing and you could write something more that just a list, then think about writing an itinerary. Take a look at articles like Ad's Path to see what I mean. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the area, but I would agree that an itinerary might make sense. However, indexing that many monuments is not something we do on Wikivoyage, except for UNESCO-listed attractions; instead, Wikipedia is big on lists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Traveler100, I wasn't really planning to map all those 1233 Rijksmonumenten by myself. I have a list of notable Rijksmonumenten in Doetinchem, but I will have to look into the (history of) other parts of the Achterhoek just to be sure. And yes, I know for a fact that Rijksmonumenten are occasionally used for the sake of a hiking/cycling route.

Ikan Kekek, a page of this form would be made to not be an ordinary list on Wikipedia. I'd like to include a bit more background on the building its history (Rijksmonumenten most often are historical buildings) to make it useful to the traveller. I might actually go by the Tourism Office here to get some of those routes to see what are popular/recommended Rijksmonument routes.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd still go with an itinerary here, it might be a very interesting one, especially if made with biking or hiking in mind. I think we may thus do away with Lochem as a destination. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree to do away with Lochem, If we can decide the proper title for this page, then I'll get to it once I come back from work. I think I'll get a hold of some routes (probably) somewhere next week. The Tourism Office in Doetinchem should sell them according to VVV.nl (Dutch)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

(Little addition): If we take some time, we might actually be able to create our own routes based on the monuments we would like to see. I do not know whether that's an effort we'd wand to commit to, though.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You can do that with our blessing. Any itinerary with a clear route that you think is fun and/or interesting is great to write up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Did some searching, found some routes, put them into an article together with some background information. I am hesitant to actually buy a map and report the routes within, as it will take away the need to buy said map. Either way: Cycling in the Achterhoek. I may make a separate itinerary for hiking (debatable title - no real mountains here), but we'll see about that. I suggest that from here on out we'll discuss this on Talk:Cycling in the Achterhoek.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)