Talk:Groene Hart

The scope of this article

I've been tempted to switch this article around a few times, but perhaps it is best that I mention it here first. The Groene Hart as it is and as we document it here is extraterritorial, being part of both South Holland and Utrecht, yet it is not listed as extraterritorial but as a part of South Holland. My preference is to include the Groene Hart in the latter as a region, which is how it is linked from there too. The article is only linked from Utrecht as a 'go next', implying that the Groene Hart isn't part of Utrecht. This makes my question as follows: Should we either:

1. Include the Groene Hart as a part of South Holland, making it consist of Alphen aan den Rijn, Bodegraven-Reeuwijk, Gouda, Kaag en Braassem, Krimpenerwaard, Waddinxveen and Zuidplas.
   (Zoeterwoude is included in the region map, but seen the orientation of the municipality (closer to Leiden than the nearby cities Zoetermeer and Alphen aan den Rijn), I'd prefer to include Zoeterwoude in Kennemerland instead)
2. Include the Groene Hart in Utrecht, consisting of the municipalities of Lopik, Montfoort, Oudewater and Woerden, since these four are the only Utrechtse provinces counted as a part of the region. Technically speaking, we could add De Ronde Venen and Stichtse Vecht to this region, but those two are part of the Gooi en Vechtstreek already, which raises issues with that article.
3. Make the Groene Hart as an extraterritorial region, which the article seems to be wanting to be. This means, however, that the South Hollandic region as part of its hierarchy should be renamed to something else.

My preference would be with option one, but I may not be truly impartial on this matter, so I'd love to hear what others think.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

When you say the map, is it a dynamic map or a static map? If it's a dynamic map, then changing the lower level destinations is not a problem. With a static map if we change the scope of the region we have to remove the map altogether. That is, unless we do option 3 and change this place to an {{extraregion}}. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: South Holland's region map is static at this time. It, however, still needs to be updated to show the Rotterdam-The Hague Metropolitan Region instead of Haaglanden and Rijnmond, which were merged exactly a year minus a day ago. This update to the map should probably be postponed though, since there is also a discussion for districtification of Rotterdam pending, and the Metropolitan Region article as it stands now is everything but in line with 7+2. This should be discussed at the appropriate talk pages though. When it comes to changing the map to a dynamic one though, I have one already, but it is ahead of any changes to the South Holland (and Utrecht) hierarchy.

Option three I am willing to support so long as it can fit in normal hierarchy. I know that that's a bit of a contradiction to extraterritorial articles, but what I mean by this is that I'd rather not see the article cover the same as two independent articles for what would be "North-east South Holland" and "West Utrecht", so to say. I for one, however, see the Groene Hart as a part of South Holland, and I'm sure that when someone mentions the Groene Hart to a Dutchman, they too will not think about Utrecht right away. Option two therefore is a no-go if you'd ask me, but it ought to be listed since it isn't an impossible option either.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that static map, but actually it was this one that I was referring to. But thanks for the detailed information! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)