Talk:Franconian Switzerland

Should this be made an extraregion or park and make it and Aufseß part of Upper Franconia? Does not seem worth making an extra region level with so few location pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

First off: I am biased as I spent most of the most formative years of my live in the area shown on this map. But I do think that Franconian Switzerland is a historically important tourism destination (the name goes back to the Romanticists of the early 19th century) that still draws millions of travelers each year. It is not defined by its cities (and therefore the redlinks will probably stay that way unless en-WV becomes de-WV). But dealing with it in some concise manner is imho important. Which way we should treat this area though, I don't know. Treating it as a (bottom level) region would tempt many people to add link to "cities" that are not worth mentioning, yet it is not a national park in any way shape or form. Making it an extraregion would imho create more problems than it solves, as this area in a way fits better into region relevant to travel than the largely artificial Regierungsbezirke of Upper Middle and Lower Franconia that for some reason have (half empty) articles. Any way. I think we should do something about this and cut down on the red links. And some things may in fact be worth translating from de-WV. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree it is an area that deserves an article, I have worked in the area a few times but unfortunately not had the chance to spend some leisure them there. A Park does not need to be a national park, it can also be a natural areas that are large enough to be destinations in their own right, which I think fits here. Do not think we need to change much in the format. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Could do with a few listings in See and Sleep --Traveler100 (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So technically this is now at usable status. The area however deserves a few more See, Eat and Sleep listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Cities" list

First of all even the biggest "cities" in the list are stretching the definition of the term. Most of them currently redlink and probably will for quite some time... What are we to do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

if it was a region I would be concerned but as a park I think it is reasonable. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are trying to say... How is a region different from a park in terms of acceptable tiny redlink towns? --Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that those redlinks were part of the reason to convert this from a region into a park, and that they have not been created as articles in literally years, I commented them out. However, User:Traveler100 disagreed. I invite anybody so inclined to weigh in on what to do... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say towns & remarkable villages get a line on the list & a link. Ordinary villages do not, though they can be mentioned in text & use a marker with co-ordinates. Pashley (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fossils?

This region is listed at Paleontology#Europe_2 without the one-liner description it should have & I see nothing about fossils in this article. Can someone add those? Pashley (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)