Talk:Osnabrück

I am looking for a layout of the train station. I have seen it previously but don't recall where. It would be nice to include this or a link.

Lead paras

TT, please explain your reversion of my lead para, which I feel goes against what we agreed. "Understand" is recommended not required in a page like this. Osnabruck is populous but not a "large city" in terms of its attractions for visitors (though these are poorly documented). Moreover that policy was written with zero expectation of what the lead might contain. It was not the policy intent to retain such a section for its own sake, when the salient points have already been better made - the earlier debate was chiefly about losing relevant info not where it sat. There's hardly a page I light upon in this expedition that doesn't merit several hours work to upgrade, and this is certainly an example, and its present "Understand" is an eyesore. Grahamsands (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I added some listings. I think there can be done more for a lede than the lateral move of "converting" the understand section to a lede. Experience teaches that a non-existent section is harder to create than adding to an existing section... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll point to where in the conversation I have drawn my conclusion from:

• "In some cases I do think it can work to move information from "Understand", but I don't think the "Understand" section should be removed." - Granger
• "Moving text from Understand to lead paragraph improves the article by making the readers first contact with the article more interesting. The Understand sections shouldn't be removed." - Ground Zero
• "User:ThunderingTyphoons! raised the issue of the Understand section being pillaged and even eliminated to strengthen the lead. Only User:Grahamsands was doing that. TT has specifically said that he doesn't want to shut down this project. I don't see any objection to expanding the lead by using text from Understand, as long as that section remains a useful section, and no-one could conceivably object to building the article by adding text to the lead." - GZ
• "While I would be happy to discuss the differences of opinion over Understand sections, that should be somewhere else." - me, and we haven't had that discussion yet
• "We can't in this exercise try to fix the totality of each page, but any improvements to "Understand" will be time well-spent even though it slows the pace." - you
• " Let's improve the lead, and improve Understand while we're at it. It takes longer that just cutting from one to add to the other, but the result is better articles." - Ground Zero again

I don't know which policy you're referring to, but I am reading Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections, which says "[Understand is r]ecommended in all destination articles." I will grant you this is a recommendation, not a requirement. However, Wikivoyage:City guide status does require, not recommend, that all Guide-level articles have an 'Understand' section. If we want this article to attain Guide status (and we should want every article to reach Guide as a minimum), the 'Understand' section needs to be either retained or rewritten from scratch. Hobbit put it best above as to why rewriting from scratch is the inferior option.

All in all, I think "recommended, not required" is splitting hairs. If something is recommended for all articles, do we make any article better by ignoring the recommendation and removing that something? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have improved the lead and expanded the Understand section with text from w:Osnabrück to demonstrate that it can be done. Having said that, I did come across one town, Medewi, where I found nothing to say about it beyond what was already in the Understand section. In that case I eliminated the Understand section because I do think that the lead is more important. Ground Zero (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I would still contend that if you knew Medewi well enough, you'd find something to say in 'Understand' that couldn't be covered elsewhere. Everywhere that fulfils WV:WIAA has enough history, and/or geography, and/or culture to fill at least a short 'Understand' section, though sometimes it takes local knowledge to be able to do so. Not filling out 'Understand' yet doesn't preclude adding one in future. Thanks for your reworking here; looks good. To be clear, I have no problem with you, Graham or anyone else making the lede longer than it currently is.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Merging the understand section into the lead doesn't preclude anyone with more knowledge from creating an understand section in the future. In the case of Medewi, it's a beach town with no Wikipedia article, so there may actually be anything to say about it. I have confirmed that it is a real place, though. Ground Zero (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. You've done the best anyone can without having first-hand knowledge.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Osnabrück has been hugely improved, thanks all round, so I’ve added an Understand for Medewi just to improve the shining hour. I apologise to anyone who felt I was flouting the consensus we’d thrashed out. Yet as I read it, it gave considerable scope (indeed opportunity) for lead / understand development, while affirming no change to an existing policy which states what we’ve acknowledged it states. The difference between “required” and “recommended” is not splitting hairs, it’s pretty fundamental in the English language; and it’s not reasonable to take a flexible interpretation of policy in order to deny the same flexibility to another. Grahamsands (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)