Wikipedia has an article by the name of Ruhr Area. I always thought the area was called the Ruhr Valley, but maybe I was wrong. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:39, 25 June 2006 (EDT)
Why is Düsseldorf listed under "Cities"? It is not far away from the Ruhr area, but as a reader I would think this list means, that it is one of the cities in the Ruhr area. 126.96.36.199 19:11, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
To be honest, I do not know either. And I'm quite shure most citicens of Düsseldorf do not like to hear their city (situated in the Rhinelands) listed together with Ruhrgebiet (Westphalia). From my point of view the sentence should be deletet if nobody raises a plea. Hans-Jürgen Wiese 11:35, 26 Jan 2010 (EDT)
Thank you that you reviewd the artikel, but with the deletion of the first sentence in chapter "see" as well as "what you must have seen" and your suggestion to move the items to the pages of the cities I do not agree. It meets in no way the existing situation. From a political point of view the Ruhr does not exist, geographical the Ruhr is exact the area of the involved cities. So why not delete the complete article Ruhr and provide only the links to the cities? Because cultural the Ruhr is much more than the sum of the involved cities. And culture is the reason visitors come for. The Ruhr, not the involved cities, obtained the title "capital of culture". So visitors of the Guide expect a list of sights which represent the character of the Ruhr. On the other hand you cannot delete the item from the city's artikel. And to have a fully sized item twice is not so desirable too. So my idea is to have a quite short item within the site of the Ruhr giving the reader a first impression and a provide a link to the detailed aitem within the city's site for those whe are interested. So I like to request to restore this few sentences I mentionen above.
Of course the complete chapter "see" needs a complete revision, it is badly structured and some items exist twice. A job I have planned for the next days.
Regarding you idea the tourist board could have written parts of the article Ruhr I think you mean the part 'Stereotypes and Facts". I feel honored. But I admit that these stereotypes might not mean something for foreign guys. Most Germans believe in the stereotypes, so it makes sense to tell then the truth. But probably foreigeners have no meaning about the Ruhr and there is no need to correct not existing stereotypes. So the deletion of this chapter might be ok. Hans-Jürgen Wiese 22:12, 26 Jan 2010 (EDT)
Hi Hans, thank you for that and for your corresponding message on my talk page. I will try to go through the article and give you whatever guidance occurs to me.
The key thing is that this is a region article and more precisely a low level region article. The Wikitravel hierachical structure determines that region articles do not contain detailed listings. These are placed in their respective individual city articles, and the region article itself contains a prose summary of the key characteristics of activities, attractions and even sleep and eat options. But no detailed listings. This is to avoid repetition.
Wikitravel does not have a lot of well developed low level region articles but I can offer these as examples of such articles which sit in exactly the same place in their respective hierachies as does Ruhr. Any of them might help you better understand they points I make: East Java, Top End and South Bali.
On your explanation of stereotypes. I suggest a prose paragaph in the Understand section with a sub-heading of "People" should do the job adequately.
I remember all too well how difficult it can be to understand the way things work at Wikitravel when you first start editing here, so please do not be discouraged by this and do not hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. Cheers. --Burmesedays 19:55, 26 January 2010 (EST)
Hi Burmesedays, I'm absolutely on your side. A short hint on the region artikle so that the reader can decide whether he might be interested and a detailed acticle on individual city article. I had already in focus to revise the Ruhr article, so I will have a look on this issue. On the other hand, something what is valid for the region and all the same for the pending detailed artikels (f.e. public transport), shouldn't it described in detail in the region artikel and the city articles contain a reference, should it?
You can certainly provide a good run down on the public transport options in the region article. The details of costs and scheduling though should be in the individual city articles, as it relates to each one specifically. --Burmesedays 06:38, 27 January 2010 (EST)