Does this have to be "Wuerttemberg" instead of "Württemberg"? Yes, I've read the naming conventions, but:
is "ue" the commonly used spelling? Or rather "Wurttemberg"? I'm German, and live in BaWü, so I don't know.
the naming conv says not to use non-Latin characters. "ü" is Latin... so?
I'd like to move it to the proper spelling, but don't want to commit a big faux-pas on my first day on WikiTravel. --Jae 08:52, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)
Have a read of Wikitravel:Foreign-language names before moving. Google indicates that "Baden-Wurttemberg" is a more common English name but "Baden-Wuerttemberg" is a common alternative. I would move the article (but not this talk page) to "Baden-Wurttemberg", and add a redirect from Baden-Württemberg then mention all 3 spellings in the first line of the article. This means all the Google possibilities are covered as the article is presented under all 3 titles, though only sits on the most popular English one. Unfortunately ü is not standard English. -- Huttite 03:25, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)
'Wuerttemberg' is definitely wrong, but whether ü is OK or not is in flux right now. Let's hold off on this for a moment. Jpatokal 04:00, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)
Wuerttemberg is definitely more correct than Wurttemberg (which is incorrect but widely used). Umlauts are correctly transcribed using e: ä=ae, ü=ue, ö=oe
For our purposes, "incorrect but widely used" is kind of a contradiction in terms. We standardize on "English names" because (despite not being the correct names used by the people who actually live there) they're widely used by our audience. "Vienna" is a bad transliteration of "Wien", "Florence" is a butchering of "Firenze", and how did we get "Munich" out of "München"? But those are the spellings that anglophones use, so we do as well. If Wurttemburg is more widely used than Wuerttemburg, it should be used instead. - Todd VerBeek 07:45, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
Splitting into further sub-regions?
There is a bunch of orphaned pages which need to be de-orphaned. The following lists were deleted under the 7±2 rule, but if there are no objections, I will turn them into sub regions in a few days. -- Tim (writeme!) 08:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
Here are the different regions for each Regierungsbezirk:
I removed this lists without considering that this will create orphaned articles. I'll create region articles, but naming them "xxx (region)" not "xxx (Regierungsbezirk)". Feel free to change this if you do not like it, I am not sure what is better. --Flip666writeme! • 09:18, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. Thanks -- Tim (writeme!) 06:14, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
--ludwigshafen is not in baden-württemberg !!!!!!! so BASF is in rheinland-pfalz
I do not like the current political regions we have set up, I think we can better use tourist regions for this state. Stuttgart Region doesn't ring any bells with most visitors, so I suggest the following sub-regions:
I see a problem that both Black Forest and Lake Constance already exist as regions extending far beyond Baden-Württemberg, further do the suggested regions cover all of the state? We need to set up regions for the regional hierarchy without gaps or overlaps. But apart from that, I agree that we should avoid the political regions, if possible, --ClausHansen 19:00, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
The Black Forest article does not extend beyond its purpose. The Lake Constance region does extend into Austria and Switzerland, so we could create the two articles I just proposed. --globe-trotter 19:24, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
That looks fine. I think it is important to define these new regions, ideally by a map but until we have that by explanation eg with reference to counties or other, --ClausHansen 01:40, 13 August 2010 (EDT)