Talk:Lower Saxony

see also: Talk:Lower Saxony/Archive

regions

Currently Middle Weser has only 2 articles and I really cannot see it growing much more any time soon. Question is what should it be merged with? Although Weser Uplands only has 6 articles and Elbe-Weser Triangle only has 3 and would make sense to bring all to do with the Elbe together, I actually think Western Plains (Lower Saxony) with 4 articles makes the most sense from a point of view of type of landscape and style of town in the area. Comments and input please. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion:merge Middle Weser into Western Plains (Lower Saxony); combine East Frisia and Elbe-Weser Triangle into new article Coastal Lower Saxony. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hannover and Brunswick region are not very large by area either and at least the former contains a lot of redlinks... The problem with Harz is that it is one continuous region in many regards but has been in two separate countries for forty years, thus necessitating something like two Harz articles.... Or another one for the whole Harz as an extraregion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Any progress on this?

So this seems to have stalled before any result was actually achieved. How should we proceed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I would propose to merge Weser Uplands and the Lower Saxon parts of Harz into Southern Lower Saxony (compare de:Südniedersachsen). You have common characteristics in landscape (rolling hills and low mountain ranges), sights (e.g. romantic, well-preserved medieval town cores) and infrastructure (both regions belong to the Verkehrsverbund Süd-Niedersachsen transport network, Göttingen is their main transportation hub). Moreover I would merge Middle Weser and Hanover Region. Middle Weser is infrastructure-wise strongly oriented towards Hanover, e.g. Hanover S-Bahnen (suburban trains) running to Nienburg and Minden, moreover Middle Weser belonged to the administrative region of Hanover (until administrative regions were suppressed in 2004) and the "Leine-Weser area" still has a joint commissioner for regional development. While merging East Frisia and Elbe-Weser Triangle may have some merits (e.g. typical activities linked to their seaside location), the region would be huge, stretching about 200 km from its western to its eastern end, and therefore pretty unhandy. E.g. arriving via Hamburg is advisable if you go to the Elbe-Weser Triangle, but it does not make sense if you travel to East Frisia. --RJFF (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been rethinking this. It might be even better to split the current Middle Weser region and merge its Western part—Diepholz district (see administrative map), which is, by the way, not located on the Weser anyway—which is closer to Oldenburg and Osnabrück with the Western Plains, where it fits pretty naturally, and the Eastern part—Nienburg and Verden districts—with the Hanover Region, as it is closer and more strongly linked to Hanover. Moreover, I uphold my proposal to merge Weser Uplands and Upper Harz into Southern Lower Saxony. @Hobbitschuster, Traveler100: Agreed? May we ask @Ypsilon: to please update the map accordingly? (I have seen that you have uploaded and edited quite a few Wikivoyage district maps, and I do not know how to edit them. The original uploader @Globe-trotter: has unfortunately not been very active lately.) A reorganisation of regions should not be done without the respective edit to the map, to avoid confusion of readers. --RJFF (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the fine details of the places, despite having traveled around northern Germany including Niedersachsen quite a few times but I do agree that there's no use in having a lot of near-empty articles. Though, I can certainly help out with the map when all changes are agreed upon. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ypsilon: That would be great! Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the reorganization sounds good, but what about Harz? For quite some time, it was listed as a sub-region of two states of Germany. How do we address this? Or has this already been addressed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave Harz as it, it works as it should as an ExtraRegion. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Traveler100: So, do you agree with my proposals on Middle Weser and Southern Lower Saxony? --RJFF (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

yes I think moving the contents of Middle Weser into other existing regions is a good idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Traveler100: Could you please delete Southern Lower Saxony (which has a short contributions history) to make way for the move of Weser Uplands? @Ypsilon: I have performed the mergers. If you like, you could update the map now. Thanks in advance to both of you. --RJFF (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Done --Traveler100 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Dunno if I have time for it tonight, but ping again if it's not done in a couple of days :) . Just to make sure I understood correctly, there are two changes to be done: Middle Weser > Hanover Region and Harz + Weser Uplands > Southern Lower Saxony ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ypsilon: If this is not too difficult, Middle Weser should be split: Diepholz district > Western Plains and Nienburg + Verden districts > Hanover Region (you may use this map for orientation). If it is too bothersome, it would be no problem to merge all of Middle Weser into Hanover Region, as Diepholz district currently has no place of interest anyway. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[indent reset] New map is up. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Where? The map in the article is still the old one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a new version of the file in commons. You may have to reset your browser/force reload the page or something. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ypsilon: Thanks a lot! The regions look exactly as I imagined them. But some of the road and rail lines now extend beyond the frame of the map, which was not the case before your edit. Perhaps you could have a look again and fix this? Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@RJFF: Yeah, I got aware of the problem when the PNG was uploaded, but didn't yesterday have the energy to take the SVG into pieces once again to investigate the issue. As you can see now, I added a frame and now there's nothing overflowing. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ypsilon: Perfect. --RJFF (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)