Talk:Stuttgart

I worked in Stuttgart for a while and had a Handy (mobile). Unlike the UK, a Handy's owner had to be registered. Is this still the case? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 87.127.117.7 (talk • contribs)

No, you can bring your own mobile and buy a sim card ("Prepaid-Karte") at Media Markt, Saturn or even at some of the supermarkets. However, you should whether there's a sim lock on your handset. Also note that many of the budget sim cards use networks (O2, Eplus) which might not provide great reception in rural areas. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 84.57.161.68 (talk • contribs)

Sources of information

• City info by Sttugart University —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 132.248.36.169 (talk • contribs)

Vineyards in the centre of the city?

Can anyone verify the claim that there are vineyards in the centre of the city and close to the Hauptbahnhof ? (to the North West) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Official website claims something similar. Jjtkk (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The user (maybe you) also provided this on their talk page: "Birkenwaldstraße 56 70191 Stuttgart" or see http://www.stuttgart.de/item/show/339491 --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Pullman Fontana photo

Normally, photos of hotels are not included in Wikivoyage guides unless they're of interest as sights in themselves. This building doesn't look particularly significant or beautiful. Is there any reason why the photo should not be deleted from this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You can if you please, I just wanted to add a photo to an otherwise featureless section to spruce it up a bit, and this is the only hotel still in existence that I could find a photo of. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

But it's not necessary or even appropriate for every article to have a photo of a hotel in it. See Listings#Avoid_using_images:

Images of businesses, including hotels and their bedrooms, are generally not used. The only exceptions are if the business is a well-known attraction in its own right, or if the image is of a type of accommodation that is unusual and unique to the region. In the second case, identifying the lodgings where the picture was taken by name is not necessary.

If you want to spruce up that section of the article, it can have another type of photo in it, unless there is a particularly beautiful or notable hotel in Stuttgart that you can find a photo for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many listed restaurants in Vaihingen

Vaihingen is just a suburb and not of high interest for tourists. Decent restaurants are all over the city and not worth to mention! See https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Avoid_long_lists —The preceding comment was added by Uhkabu (talk • contribs)

User:Traveller100 has provided some of those after a discussion we had when I mentioned I am staying in Vaihingen and he did many times. There is a considerable amount of casual, business and scientific tourists staying there. I see no problem with listing restaurants there, I would rather focus on some other miserable aspects of the article, like the appalling way the Sehenswuerdigkeiten are listed and many of them omitted. I have only started working on those and it would be brilliant if we focused on that first rather than discussing if we have too many restaurants. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this site is a travel guide, mainly for tourists but is also for business and educational travellers. Even for tourists Vaihingen is a useful place to stay as it has very good S-Bahn connections to most parts of the city and the airport. I have added entries for other areas of the town, just I know this one better than others, needs more input from other. As to the length of listings you may have a point. Was thinking at some stage the Eat section and maybe the Sleep section should be split into suburbs (do not thin the article is big enough yet for districts). --Traveler100 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Map allignment and zoom level

Hi User:PrinceGloria, apologies for changing your carefully crafted dynamics map, however I do have some concerns:

1. Why is the map alligned in the center so that text can not flow around it?
2. Why is it so large? (600x600)
3. Why is the zoom level so deep (15) when there are a lot of attactions outside of the city center?

Thanks! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to react so quickly, here I go with the replies:

1. With a map 600px wide, making the text flow around would create a mess of a squeezed block of text that is hard to read and a map that is harder to make out. There are people viewing our pages on screens with low resolution. Anything wider than 400px is IMHO too wide not to be centered - if it is an image, I make it standard size and hope the reader will click if interested. If it is a map that is key to reading the article, it should read and print well.
2. Try to fit all the key POIs of central Stuttgart on a smaller map that is legible and you will end up with a lot of yellow pluses. The map should be useful, not just put there to check a box. I believe that small maps make no sense, except for very small destinations.
3. The map is centered and zoomed on the city centre for the very reason as above - just to show there is a Porsche Museum there and Fernsehturm there we would have to make the centre a huge cluster of yellow pluses. IMHO it is ore useful for the traveller to be able to look at and print out a map of the centre and use the dynamic features if they want to find out the exact locations of the POIs farther out. Until we have a feature that allows multiple dynamic maps in one article, we have to make such compromises, and I believe in case of Stuttgart the one I made works (I have been to Stuttgart since with the very map, was very worthwhile!)

PrinceGloria (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I really have concerns around this approach so I have raised on Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Guidelines_for_Positioning_and_Sizing_Dynamic_Maps. I know you don't like the 'yellow pluses' that now appear, unfortunately that isn't sufficient reason to break convention.

Also I really can't agree that only having the map centered on the inner city is a good idea. It would mean that visitors may not be aware of anything else happening outside of the city center.

These issues could actually be resolved by creating district articles. Pehaps even just 'inner city' and 'outer city'. Do you agree? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that they could, I don't agree on creating those articles - Stuttgart is perfectly served by just one article, there are not that many POIs. If anything, consider raising with Joachim the issue of actually allowing two maps in one article. Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

I think we should remove the pictures of the airport terminal (which looks like an airport terminal), the tram, and the red S-bahn train. These are not interesting pictures and it feels encyclopedic to document the different modes of transportation. The Hauptbahnhof picture should be kept as it is an attractive building, and the Zahnradbahn picture illustrates this interesting mode of transit. I think, the others are unnecessary clutter. Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. I think those should be removed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The picture of the airport terminal is a good picture, so I wouldn't mind keeping it in the article but wouldn't fight for it. Otherwise, I agree with you guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ready to feature?

Is this article ready to be nominated at Dotm? What is missing? /Yvwv (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)