Talk:Erlangen

Understand - Tourist Information/external portal link

I've just noticed that the Tourist Information subsection of Understand contains an external link (apparently already imported from WikiTravel). I deem that link not too appropriate and, now that the article is more or less covering everything that's necessary, irrelevant. Should we delete it? My understanding is that we generally don't like external links too much. I would personally add/keep them if they provide up-to-date info regarding events (which a guide can never do), otherwise I think everything the traveller would like to read should be in here.Buan~dewiki (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Only official tourism sites should be linked. If it is not a governmental site or a company contracted by the government to provide tourism information, the link should be removed per Wikivoyage:External links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I've removed the link. Buan~dewiki (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How to get this to guide

I guess the most important thing is some minor wording tweaks, formatting, some pictures, formatting making sure this article aligns with WV style and of course formatting. Anything I am missing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Formatting and styling is certainly necessary, I have quite some additional informations (as far as I can tell now, it's just listing items) to add (which need some work, so I will add them over the time) and would suggest we add a brief paragraph to Understand that picks up the three defining items from the GErman page (Hugenottenstadt, Siemensstadt, Studentenstadt) - maybe we would like to add "medicine" to both. I would suggest to align the German and English page a little (I intend to do that as soon as I'm finished with the additions), maybe there are some minor additions to the English one from the GErman text. Buan~dewiki (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot one major thing: the see section is outdated, that's the next one I would fix and extend to use full templates and some more descriptions. There is more information on "sights" on the German page.

Buan~dewiki (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Those aspects (Huguenots, Siemens and the University) are largely covered in the "history" section of understand. I don't think they should be mentioned again in other parts of the article. The fact that medicine is a thing the university focuses on is also mentioned somewhere in the article. Or am I misunderstanding you? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing, it would be nice to have the ICE routes in routebox similar to the way they are in Dresden#Go_next Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I can add routebox entries, I know there's an ICE connection Munich-Nuremberg-Erlangen-Leipzig-Berlin but do not know whether there are others. Regarding the Understand section: in my view there's a difference between current cultur/major factors and history. I agree that history covers much of the (detailed) contents, but still think there's an additional image one transports, e.g. by saying which organizations currently influence society. I thoght about something with roughly the follwoing depth (maybe still somewhat too long) and think that should also bei in the understand section

Erlangen's culture is dominated by a small number of very strong influence factors: its regular acceptance of new citizens with their differing beliefs, especially the Hugenots', and its still vert active university (about 1/3 of Erlangen's inhabitants are students or staff), medicine and its several big clinics and (with strong medical research and companies) and its dominant employer Siemens (which has more than 20k employees at its sites within the city and which is building a huge campus in Erlangen's south beginning 2016). These bring a lot of internationals in, so the local offerings are more diverse and more international than you would expect for a city of this size.

The older parts of the city are all planned community, as you can see from its strongly orthogonal grid. A notable trivia is that the so called “old city” (Altstadt) is actually not the oldest part of the city, it has rather been rebuilt on the ruins of the former town which burned down in an unfortunate accident in the early 18th century. The oldest part is the baroque “new city” (Neustadt) which has been built as a planned community and served as template for rebuilding the old town.

I would also add Reiniger & Gossen factories to the industrialization part (they also seem important and the respective buildings still exist.

Buan~dewiki (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I deem that most of the article is now in a roughly good state, except for the drink and sleep sections (for which I have "tons" of content to add -- I would suggest to add that and to switch to "guide" status otherwise. What do you think? Buan~dewiki (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically not usable status as sleep listing do not have location addresses. Apart from that getting close to guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As said, I deemed both the drink as well as the sleep sections hardly usable, but have overhauled both now. There is still a lot to improve but the article is in my view more or less guide status now. Agree? Buan~dewiki (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've switched it. Buan~dewiki (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

See

HobbitschusterRegarding your edit of see: I agree. I have updated the German "Sehenswürdigkeiten" section and intend to translate this to get the English version to a good state. In my view small edits to this section do not add significant advancements. Buan~dewiki (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing is that we do not link to other travel guides or the like and I deemed the link I removed against that policy. This is of course not a clear cut case, so I am open to discussion. Another thing is that some things are mentioned twice in the article, among them the "Lange Nacht der Wissenschaften" which is listed under do (where it probably belongs) and see (where it probably doesn't.) Similarly Entla's Keller is mentioned twice in "Eat". Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't concretely know which link but I doubt it was originally from me (except if official); if I entered it here, it may have come from the German site. I any case: I am fine with removing such links (while I don't know the policy by heart, I am sure it is good). Buan~dewiki (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

phone numbers in Germany

User:Hobbitschuster is there a style guide decision regarding the phone number updates you have made? I deem the other format much more useful to foreigners! Buan~dewiki (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am curious

What was factually inaccurate about my edit for this edit to be necessary? Is the Konsum a Frida now? Same thing. The "food court" was in scare quotes because while there is a cluster of food offers, it is not officially called a food court and it has no shared seating as far as I am aware. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen that now, sorry. I was just in the process of writing you anyway.

Regarding the mall: Konsum (which was actually called "Frida" as mark, but as you say was part of Konsum (Dresden to be exact, there are many more)) is not in Arcaden any more for certainly more than a year. To be clear about one point: I think even if it would still be operated by Konsum, we would need to write "Frida" as everything else is unpractical to the traveller who does not know it's just a trademark of Konsum Dresden. There is a "tegut" grocery store in there now (which also has a focus on good-quality products, but does not seem expensive to me, although that's a subjective impression).
I see your point that more information would be helpful, but that should be solid one. In my view we should roughly add that there are, "amongst others", "brand clothing stores", jewellery, the main branch office of Postbank which also provides postal services, the electronics store Saturn, several good food offerings and much more (or so - I am open; and I see that there was an imbalance between Arcaden and neuer markt). Or should we drop the details completely and just say that one mal is smaller and has two big clothing stores and some small ones and the other is has shops of all kinds, incl. big chains? I would in any case try to avoid long enumerations of stores, we also don't do that for the streets, do we?

Regarding the latest changes: they are correct (of course). That's called typos. Wikitext is very hard to proofread and I did not have the time to read everything again in the nice view. I have a "content-first" attitude. Personally, I deem your comments inappropriate; I did a lot of work on the article and think that I advanced it, so negative comments seem unnecessary. Besides that: thank you for fixing the errors.
Similar for the quick changes of my text: the speed at which the changes came in combination with not asking has some negative connotation; I do think the updates are good (and in most cases, with somebody else working on the text, the text improves, is potentially even brought to an entirely new level). At the same time, please be cautious how that could look like to other authors (especially ones who are not too self-confident). I am generally ok with it, if it really improves the text (which in my view was not the case for Arcaden, as the information was outdated -- and I'd rather have none than wrong one). Buan~dewiki (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it appears that the last time I was in the Arcaden is even longer ago than I thought. At any rate, Konsum Frida (which to me are so obviously the same, I do not even distinguish them in my mind, which can be the reason I remember one as the other). As to proof reading, please install a spellchecker. It helps a lot. For firefox it is quite easy to install and should you not know how, I will look it up again. You can have multiple spellcheckers for multiple languages. It will of course not catch all errors, but some of the more glaringly obvious ones. As for my edit summaries, yeah I probably should cut down on the snark. Sorry, it has come to be my default approach to stuff, which is probably one of the most annoying things about my generation. I do think listing some of the stores in the malls can give people an idea of what's there. For instance most malls are anchored by one or several grocery stores and the Arcaden are atypical insofar as their anchor-tenant is Saturn and the one grocery store is clearly in the high price segment (I am using this as a relative term; while some might justifiably say Aldi, Lidl and the likes are too cheap, the fact remains that by amount of stuff sold Konsum, tegut and the likes are well above the median in terms of price, probably even in the upper ten or twenty percent). I am not really thinking twice about making changes to the text, to be honest. My English is not perfect and is indeed quite often polished and corrected by others when I edit here and I do not think twice about it. If that is a problem for you, I am sorry. Of course you did a lot of good work on the article and I applaud you for it, but some wordings sounded to me just... weird. And not the way any native speaker would write (though I am of course not a native speaker myself). Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As said, the wording mostly gets better if another person has a look at it. It did this time, too. Therefore, in consequence, I am fine with the changes. I have neither tried to have a look at each and every single detail change (as I expect you had a reason for the change) nor is the history compare tool suitable for it (as it often shows changes where there aren't and vice versa), therefore I cannot comment on the rest and I also deem it superfluous. What matters is that, in the end, the article on the city is getting better. As it did here. Buan~dewiki (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Getting this article featured

Now it appears that we have no shortage on featurenoms from Germany, but this article is slowly but surely approaching a state in which a nomination can be considered. I would suggest running it during Pentecost / Whitsuntide (Pfingsten) for Bergkirchweih which is without a shred of a doubt the most obvious tourist draw of the city. However, given that Wernigerode might get the nod soon, it may well be a year or even more out, so a concern of the content being up to date might arise. At any rate, are there still things anybody would consider missing? We might want to have a picture or two more and one for the feature banner, but those are not major factors imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me; I have no experience or overview in that regard but was rather just trying to get my surroundings refle-cted in a reasonable state. As you know the city and the WikiVoyage background well, is there anything particular you deem interesing in that regard -- then I can see whether I have something or can create it (however, no promise on either ;-) Thanks for you efforts, BTW. Cheers, Buan~dewiki (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at dotm to see how the nomination process normally works and what images for the feature candidate normally look like. I think a good picture of some of the downtown stuff and/or a good picture of Bergkirchweih (if we feature it during that time) might be candidates for the image. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Time and date formatting

Per Wikivoyage policy, only one time/date format should be used in an article -- either the 24-hr clock (e.g. 09:00-18:00) or the 12-hr clock (in this format only: 9AM-6PM). This article uses the 24-hr clock. Please don't confuse travellers by switching back and forth between different styles. The policy also tells us to use the following abbreviations for days of the week: M Tu W Th F Sa Su. Ground Zero (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"See" template in a sentence

This article uses the "See" template in the middle of sentences. This problem with this is that the template automatically puts a period after the name of the site, so it breaks up the sentence. Ground Zero (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This problems remains in the article. Perhaps the "see" listings should be pulled out of the paragraphs to avoid these mid-sentence full stops before this article is featured on the main page. Ground Zero (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that is due to the above mentioned translating from de-wv. Maybe we can just use "inline=yes" as a crutch. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if that works. I don't know what that is or how to apply it. Ground Zero (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

it's an extra Parameter for the listing template. Just add it with a pipe after hours or address or something and then hit "show preview" to see if it works. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tried it in various places, and it doesn't seem to work. I will look at it again over the next couple of days. Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've tried some other approaches with the inline=yes tag, but they do not work. Any other suggestions? Some if these could be converted to standard listings, but others have no information - the See template is just being used to place it on the map. Ground Zero (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've converted the {{see}} templates to {{marker | type=see}}. I think this solves the problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Mx. Granger:! Ground Zero (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't recall who made the inline yes thingy... Will raise it in the pub. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Population figures

@Hobbitschuster: While Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia that requires precise details, it does not look good for it to be out of date. And it will become more outdated as time goes on. Regarding this edit and the comment "The figure being a rough estimate (furthermore with the "magical" 100k that is significant due to the German definition of "Großstadt") works better with the "thirds" being rough estimates as well", can we find a way of preserving the point being made while including an up-to-date population figure?

Here is my suggestion (italics added here for clarity, but would be omitted in the article):

1. Add the recent population estimate to the lead paragraph "Erlangen is a city of 113,000 people (2019) in Franconia, Germany."
2. Change "About a third of the roughly one hundred thousand residents are involved with the university (students, researchers, etc.), and roughly another third work for Siemens." to "About a third of the over one hundred thousand residents..." so that it doesn't contradict the updated population figure, but preserves the meaning of the sentence.

Would that work? Ground Zero (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How about just stating that "About a third of the residents do x and another third do y"? After being stated once, the population figure doesn't have to be alluded to again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, thanks for your comment. That's okay with me. But this was @Hobbitschuster:'s wording, so we should hear from him. Ground Zero (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Ikan. Pashley (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the hobbit has had quite enough time to comment. Just go ahead. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. It is unfortunate that we have to spend so much effort to work around Hobbitschuster's refusal to discuss differences of opinion. Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Banner improvement

The current banner is kind of overunderwhelming. I think we can do better, but I am having trouble finding a suitable image. Here are a few ideas, but I don't know that they are better than the current one. If anyone can suggest a better image, I can turn it into a banner. Ground Zero (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the current banner is overwhelming, but I do dislike the scaffolding. I prefer Banner 2, though I understand some editors oppose aerial views for whatever reason. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I meant quite the opposite. Thanks for pointing that out. Ground Zero (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Current banner

Banner 2

Banner 3

Banner 4 - another view of the Orangerie

• Banner 2. 1 looks dull and 3 is alright but I like 2 better SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I like the current banner, but if I had to chose a different banner, it would most likely be 3. #2 could be any city. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to choose a new banner. We can choose from any of the four above, or others that might be suggested. Ground Zero (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer the existing banner at this point, too. However, the subject of Banner 4 would be great to use if it were rectilinear and none of the top were cut off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note; Banner 4 is _not_ the orangerie, it's the palace. --Granada (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess the label at Wikicommons is incorrect then. Ground Zero (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the file name and corrected the descriptions. --Granada (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is another choice. It would be helpful to have comments from others who have contributed to this article. @Hobbitschuster, MartinJacobson, Mx. Granger : Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Banner 5 Erlangen Palace Garden (according to Wikimedia Commons)

Aesthetically, I think banner 3 is the most beautiful, but the current banner feels more distinctive. Those two are my favorites, but I'd be interested to hear the views of people who know the destination about which banner gives the best sense of what the place is like for visitors. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I still prefer the existing banner, but I haven't visited Erlangen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I am from Erlangen. Born, raised and went to school there, so I feel eligible for contributing to this discussion. None of the photos could depict something so special to mark Erlangen alone, at least not for people never having visited Erlangen. Erlangen is known for the Bergkirchweih (hard to photograph to make it an Erlangen-photo) and its tons of cyclists and bikes everywhere, which can be seen in banner 3. People knowing Erlangen will always know that banner 3 shows Erlangen as they must have walked through the pedestrian zone from the new town hall to the palace place. The aerial view is not the best view for Erlangen, maybe there are other aerial views showing more of central city or the view to the Burgberg? The more I think about the four banners the more I like banner 3, it shows a lot I like about Erlangen. --Granada (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In that case I support banner 3, as both aesthetically pleasing and apparently a good reflection of the destination. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Granada. I notice that Ground Zero cropped Banner 3 from a photo that you took. I love those trees. It's a shame they get mostly lost in our required 7:1 dimensions. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to Granada. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Banner 3 works for me, based on Granada's advice. I used photoshop hoping to lighten Banner 3, but I am blocked from uploading your the commons for a reason related to CropTool that affects many users. If @Granada: or someone else wants to try doing this, I think it would be worthwhile. Ground Zero (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I'll be visiting my home town end of June/start of July and I could take my camera with me and think about a fitting motive depicting Erlangen. I cannot promise anything but I'll give it a try. btw: banner 5 shows the back of the palace with the border of the orangerie to the right. --Granada (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Granada, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger, Nelson Ricardo 2500, SelfieCity: so which banner are we implementing. This was never really resolved. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000 (D'oh! You caught me just before I deleted this from Wikivoyage:Requests for comment as over two months dormant.) Does banner 3 not have consensus? Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Replaced. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Erlangen#Population_figures

Swept in from the pub

I'm sorry to have to bring such a small thing to the pub, but I've had no response from User:Hobbitschuster for two weeks. Given our past disputes, it would be helpful to have someone else provide a comment. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)