Talk:Tyrol

Contents box is over a location. Can anyone fix it? --Xijango91 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Globe-trotter (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thumbnail removal proposal

The lead thumbnail, captioned "The Alps and the Tyrolean flag", is of really terrible quality (in particular, terribly blurry). Does anyone object to removing it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering how photogenic the region is and that there is no shortage of high-quality images on commons, I do agree that it's best to remove or replace the thumbnail. –StellarD (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. And yes, there are loads of Featured and otherwise great pictures of Tyrol on Commons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

sub-regions

There appears to be a unfinished sub-region activity on this page. How should it be completed, or should it be reverted? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

WV reader with South Tyrolean roots here, following up on the call for discussion in the Pub.

The Northern part of Tyrol (i.e. Austrian Tyrol) is essentially a dozen or so different valleys separated by Alpine mountain ranges. These valleys are natural (and by that I mean 'natural' as the opposite of artificial) districts which often share a great deal of history/development, traditions, cuisine, ski infrastructure etc. The hundreds of towns and villages spread over these valleys all qualify as WV destinations, but unlike the German WV, on the English WV most of the village/town articles are still stubs or missing. However, most will be written at some point in the future because the majority is developing into popular ski resorts in winter months. So having this article Tyrol as administrative level directly above towns and villages is infeasible, because it would eventually grow into lists of hundreds of towns and villages, and no longer convenient for the traveller to browse.

I see a lot of work has been done recently to create articles for individual valleys like the Lower Inn Valley, Paznaun Valley, Kauner Valley, Stanzer Valley etc. which then act as districts grouping towns and villages geographically together. From the perspective of the traveller, they typically consider a valley their destination, so that also makes sense. It also seems useful to me to follow German WV so that readers can switch between linked German and English WV articles on the valley of their interest if the other is more complete.

In my opinion, it would probably be most useful to lay out a skeleton structure like Tyrol => Valley => Town, because the presence of a framework will encourage readers to fill in the gaps. I see the Stanzer Valley article was deleted because it only contained a single town at this point in time. My vote would be to restore it and any other valley articles that have already been deleted, or at least for the time being redirect them until more town articles are being written.

Finally, there should be consistency in naming. It's confusing that the Kauner Valley article has a German name (Kaunertal, with tal being German for valley) but the Paznaun Valley an English name. Tschüss! 137.222.114.241 10:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tyrol

Swept in from the pub

Half done job on sub-regions. Would welcome comment at Talk:Tyrol on what to do with this area. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sub-regions - ideas

1. No sub-regions

All 33 articles on one region page.

2. Expand what is there

Add regions for areas not covered by existing

Achen Valley , Lower Inn Valley , Paznaun Valley

3. Admin districts

Clear defined boundaries, but not necessarily optimum for visitors or current article spread.

Innsbruck

Innsbruck Land

Imst

Kitzbühel

Kufstein

Landeck

Lienz

Reutte

Schwaz

4. Combined districts

Use government districts but merge a few into single region.

5. another method?

Commenting here as per invitation on my talk page.

I'm from Eastern Austria, so as a disclaimer, I largely "know" Tyrol as a winter sports destination only, sorry.

That said, I'm a bit surprised by the incoherence and incompleteness of Tyrol on the English Wikivoyage. The Achensee is the largest lake of Tyrol, but no trace of it on English WV until I added the article. And why does WV pretend that the Ziller Valley/Zillertal doesn't exist at all?

I took the liberty to add missing articles around the Achensee because I'll be travelling there for a ski holiday next week myself and thought it could also help other travellers. I didn't find any conventions on how to organize individual towns so I followed the example of the Paznaun Valley which seems well written and hierarchically makes sense to me. It feels sensible to group towns per valley, because at least the regions I know best (Achen Valley and Ziller Valley) share a lot of "content". For example there is one bus line connecting all the towns in the valley so the "Get in" section is identical for all. Likewise a ski pass for the Ziller Valley enables access to every lift in the valley so it's logical to mention that kind of info one time in the "valley" article and refer to it from all the town articles. If the price of the ski pass gets increased (as it does every year) then at least it only needs to be updated in the valley article rather than in every town article individually. 178.255.152.117 18:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason it's not very useful for travellers to use administrative districts as regions because these are often fairly arbitrary. As shown in the colour coded map for example, coincidentally, the Schwaz administrative district covers both Achen Valley and Ziller Valley, but from the perspective of the traveller these are completely separate regions that have very little in common (different bus schedules, different ski pass arrangements that are not compatible, etc.). 178.255.152.117 18:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

organising by Valley sound a good method from a visitors point of view. I think the incomplete status is just that we need people with knowledge of the area and some effort put in by some of the regulars to help. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The German Wikivoyage also uses the Valley approach (for example Ziller Valley) so it would be nice to keep that consistency.

I did some research into existing Tyrolean articles and it looks pretty inconsistent. I based my own work on the Paznaun Valley and related articles, and noticed for example that at the bottom of the article for Galtür, the page is tagged as a guide article but at the same time is tagged for merging into Tyrol (!) because it doesn't meet article criteria. So it seems there is no consensus among WV editors: some consider town articles the lowest level whereas for others that's apparently too fine grained.

Personally I think it would be madness to integrate all these town articles into the Tyrol article as suggested by the merge tag, that would result in giant article with hundreds or thousands of hotels and restaurants listed, and no longer useful to travellers. If I'm going on a ski holiday in, say, the Stubai Valley then I'm interested in hotels in Neustift etc, not those on the other side of Tyrol. So merging all travel content into a single article is, in my opinion, a crazy idea. 178.255.152.117 09:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to make clear I'm not implying that English WV should follow the German sister site in all aspects. But the German WV does have articles on Galtür and Neustift so I find it bizarre that towns like these wouldn't meet article criteria on the English WV. 178.255.152.117 10:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Tyrol is a mess

Swept in from the pub

The article lists over 30 "cities" its subdivision is entirely unclear and the discussion on the talk page as to a subdivision went nowhere... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't find anybody disagreeing with the valley approach. If they are many, the districts (or groups of districts) could be used as an intermediate level, as suggested. The IP user says the districts are useless, but if valleys are not split by district borders I see no severe problem with them. Whether they are needed or not, I don't know.

Is the problem that we had a now permabanned user active with articles in that region? Some of the user's articles were deleted as the user had added biased or false information elsewhere and we thought his work couldn't be trusted?

–LPfi (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete regionalising – what a mess

It seems that this region has been partially regionalised by an IP 178.255.152.117 and it remains a mess. How should this be cleaned up? Happy to help out, but it's too much for a single person to do. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems there were just the regions of north and east (and south), until an IP user (the same?) started to create articles for individual valleys in 2019. These are so much smaller than the North Tyrol that they make little sense as parallel divisions. On the other hand they are too many for a North Tyrol region to make sense; the uppermost division needs to have more parts.

The main problem is that there are many valleys to be described. Those that we have make sense, and it'd be a pity to lose them, but we have nobody who'd write the remaining ones. The valleys are also in different parts of North Tyrol, making the remaining region unwieldy and odd.

One way to handle this would be to really divide North Tyrol in valleys, grouped in some sensible way, and create the intermediate regions, which would list the valleys, some of which might be redlinks or not links at all. They would thus be containers for existing valley articles and relieve us from having to mention them in the main Tyrol article. We'd also get the cities list down to a sensible size (by moving most cities to the intermediate regions). Is there some official subdivision that mostly coincides with the valleys, in some sense, or some other list that could be used?

The other way to do this, one that involves less work, is to make the existing valleys extraregions, linked mainly from the destination articles about places in those valleys. That'd make them invisible in the hierarchy proper, removing the mess.

–LPfi (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Using the #Admin districts above (perhaps including Innsbruck in Innsbruck Land) seems to make sense. Existing valley articles could be extraregions linked for Get in etc., where these details don't make sense in the administrative regions and would need to be repeated for city and park articles. They could be quasi-regions like the subdivisions of Finland Proper, and if treated as extraregions, them not being nicely aligned inside administrative regions or there being only a couple in some administrative regions would not be a problem. –LPfi (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This discussion hasn't gone very far. I don't know much about Tyrol.

• German Wikivoyage splits North Tyrol into three subregions: Ausserfern, Oberland, and Unterland, but it does not provide maps, so it is very difficult to determine what is intended.
• Splitting Tyrol up by valleys would require input from someone who understands the region well, and we don't seem to have anyone who does and is will to do the work.
• Wikipedia only provides information on the administrative districts. While grouping towns according to administrative boundaries is not optimal, leaving this article as it is is much worse.

I propose four subregions. I haven't got the colours to work perfectly, but you get the idea.

1. Innsbruck region (Innsbruck Land and Stadt)
2. Northwest Tyrol (Imst, Landeck, Reutte)
3. Northeast Tyrol (Kitzbühel, Kufstein, Schwaz)
4. East Tyrol (Lienz)

...

Innsbruck (Innsbruck region)

Innsbruck Land (Innsbruck region)

Imst (Northwest Tyrol)

Landeck (Northwest Tyrol)

Reutte (Northwest Tyrol)

Kitzbühel (Northeast Tyrol)

Kufstein (Northeast Tyrol)

Schwaz (Northeast Tyrol)

Lienz (East Tyrol)

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)