Nobody commented... So, now revert if you dislike ;-) BTW. If still nobody care to comment I'll go forward and change coloring of another European region :-P --JanSlupski 20:17, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)
I don't like it. There are way too many colors, it's hard to read and doesn't look professional. Jpatokal 21:05, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)
Shouldn't Serbia be removed from this category now that Montenegro is no longer part of Serbia and Montenegro?
I agree Serbía is hard to define as a Mediterranean country now that it is no longer part of a country with a Mediterranean coastline, the same goes for Macedonia as well. I personally know geography quite well and don't think of either as being Mediterranean.--22.214.171.124 12:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)
Why isn't the South of France included in this page?
It is the same problem in wikipedia, where a lot of people doesn't accept (for ideological geopolical reason I think) the fact that France is a latin and mediterranean country, for no rational reasons they think that France should be arbitrary linked only with UK and Netherlands; (countries with which ones France doesn't share much in term of culture and language - only a little bit of common points in regions such as Nord-pas-de-calais, Normandy or Britanny who share some superficial similarities (such as climates and ambiance) with Wales (in the case of Britany), with Netherlands (in the case of Nord-pas-de-calais) and with England for Normandy.
France, as a country with mediterranean coasts, of latin herency, whose culture is rooted in the mediterranean area share a lot of the common point that share Spain and Italy (even more in some cases). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006
On the other hand, some countries like Serbia or Croatia could be excluded, since the mediterranean part is very limited, and because the culture and mopst of the people of this slavic country is not of mediterranean origin but rooted in the central-eastern Europe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 2 September 2006
I've just added a remark about Alexandria and other places which to me are also obviously Mediterranean, though mostly not European. Comment? I'd say we should scrap "Mediterranean Europe", especially if it does not fit current European hierarchy, replace it with a "Mediterranean region" article covering more. Pashley 02:25, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I rolled back the change of Macedonia to FYROM. Unless there's a really important reason for us to use this longer and clumsier name, I'd rather not. --Evan 17:36, 4 December 2006 (EST)
It's bothered me that this region of a dozen nations and a half-dozen city states, stretching from the Atlantic to the Middle East isn't formally broken down into more specific sub-regions. We have the sub-regions of Iberia (which appears in the breadcrumbs) and the Balkans (which does not), but they aren't acknowledged here. What remains are Italy and its neighbors, and the the eastern countries... which I'm not sure what to call. Is the "Apennine Peninsula" too geo-geek a term for Italy and friends? Would it be insulting to Cyprus to call the eastern region "Aegean" (which is certainly what binds Greece and Turkey together)? Or do we include Greece in the Balkans and call Turkey and Cyprus the, er, "Asia Minor" region of Europe? - Todd VerBeek 09:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, this article should definitely include its subregions. "Aegean" may not be very accurate for Cyprus, but for once politics would work in our favor since this classification would firmly group the island with either Turkey or Greece, depending on how you prefer to interpret it. Besides we can argue that it has an "Aegean culture" ;) Wouldn't the Apennine Peninsula only include San Marino, Vatican City, and Italy? If so, the region page would necessarily run into content overlap with the Italy article, since the latter comprises 99% of the former's territory. I think we could do without a subregion for the Italian Peninsula and just note in the Italy article that it surrounds two independent city states, San Marino and the Vatican. In any rate, our current practice is to list all sovereign regions contained by a parent region (e.g., Saint Lucia is listed in North America as well as the Caribbean), so the Vatican and San Marino will still be linked. So I suppose that we will continue listing all the Mediterranean, European countries on this page regardless of what regions we also list. I'm not a huge fan of this practice though. --PeterTalk 14:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
NOT FRANCE ??
Not a word about the most tourist mediterranean european region : the southern coast of France. Not a word about French riviera, where the most famous mediterranean spot lies: Nice, Monaco, Cannes, Saint Tropez
Not a word about Provence, Languedoc regions ? not a word about Marseille, the french oldest city, second biggest city of that country, the biggest mediterranean port, which construct itself as a euro-mediterranean capital ?
Not a word about Corsica, the fourth mediterranean island ?
If you'd take a moment to look, you'll see we have articles about the French Riviera, including Nice, Cannes, Corsica, etc. The city-state of Monaco is even listed on this page. It's just that most of France is not on the Mediterranean, so we included it in the Western Europe region instead. It's simply a method of organizing the guide into a geographical hierarchy, not some misguided unawareness that these places exist. - Todd VerBeek 13:32, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Whether we have articles somewhere is not the point; the question is whether to include (at least parts of) France in Mediterranean Europe. The answer is "Naturellement!". I've added some text; please comment or edit. Pashley 03:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
That text was intended as a stopgap, the absolute minimum we could say about France here. Just to be clear, I'd like to see my text deleted and France added in the list of countries. I did not feel I could do that directly since the question is under discussion, so I did what I could. Pashley 03:57, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I think 184.108.40.206's remarks raise an important point. Anyone looking at a "Mediterranean Europe" page expects (rightly) to see France. Listing France does go against a small and, I would argue, misguided piece of Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy. While we certainly have to make a choice about France's breadcrumb parent, it really does no harm to list it in both indexes Western Europe and Mediterranean Europe as this creates no significant content overlap. It does however do harm to leave it out of the Mediterranean article because readers less familiar with our practices will think it to be missing, making our guide look less professional—I can certainly see why someone just becoming acquainted with Wikitravel would be shocked not to see France on this page. Can we please discuss this further at Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy#Single parents. --PeterTalk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
If we include France in this region, that adds yet another country to the list, making this an increasedly unwieldy region. It's a long way with a lot of stops in between (physically and culturally) from Portugal to Cyprus. Sub-regions? (See above.) - Todd VerBeek 08:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Splitting up Europe is exercise in frustration, because as soon as you label a country as (say) Southern somebody will come yell that Molvania is definitely Western/Central/Eastern/Mediterranean/Balkan/not-Balkan/... if "Mediterranean Europe" is good enough for L***** P*****, it's good enough for me. (Just this once.) Jpatokal 13:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
That said, I wouldn't object to renaming Med. Europe as Southern Europe if it solves something -- which I doubt. Jpatokal 14:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
I understand the objection of a too long list if we include France - but then, why including Serbia ?? Which is NOT at all a mediterranean country, and whose slavic culture is not much linked with it, but better among eastern European countries than with Spain for exemple. I think you should exclude Serbia and include France instead.
"It's just that most of France is not on the Mediterranean, so we include it in western Europe ". Can we say really that most of Spain is on the mediterranean ? it is forgetting that most of it is more continental or Atlantic. And what about Portugal, which is not at all on the mediterranean (having no shores on it, contrary to France), why is it listed in mediterranean Europe and not in western Europe ?? Portugal and Spain are Atlantic countries which are much more situated at west than France. Vigo, Santander, Santiago de compostella, Basque country, or even Castilla-Y-Leon or Madrid are not mediterranean either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
Agreed, it is kind of silly to include Serbia and Portugal (and don't forget Macedonia and not-at-all-Mediterranean Andorra. Now if we didn't make such an exception for countries (by listing all contained countries on all parent regions throughout the hierarchy) and just listed countries or their immediate parent regions on this article, then everything would suddenly make sense. Serbia looks silly on the Mediterranean Europe article, but Balkans looks perfectly appropriate. Same with Andorra and Iberia. I'm not a fan of our practice of listing all countries in every single region page up the breadcrumb trail (does Macau really need to be listed in Asia?). I think we may be guilty of not taking our region articles seriously enough. --PeterTalk 15:05, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd just like to add that Monaco is not situated between France and Italy, but inside the french départment of "Alpes maritimes". Italy stands some kilometers away from Monaco.
Alphabetic or geographic order?
Peter just alphabetised the list of cities. While that is consistent with what others have done on other pages, my reaction is very strongly negative. Methinks they should obviously be listed in geographical order, in this case West-to-East or vice versa. What do others think? Is there a policy governing this? Pashley 03:23, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
The only place I have ever seen this practice discussed was here, and the general consensus of this brief discussion was that alphabetizing is the way to go. I see why you might prefer a geographical order. But I think I still prefer alphabetical lists—since it would be hard to determine geographical order for other regions that are not clearly lined up from east to west (or north to south), alphabetized lists will give us greater consistency across Wikitravel and could easily be written up into policy pages. I'm certainly open to other arguments, though. --PeterTalk 04:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I appreciate Pashley's argument, but from the point of view of consistency I support the alphabetized system. If we change it here, then it opens the way for contributors to start listing cities on other articles geographically and, as Peter mentions, that would be very difficult to organize in many cases. Actually, there is a policy. It is something like, capital city on top (not relevant in this case) and other cities below in alphabetical order - though don't ask me where that policy is listed. WindHorse 10:06, 30 June 2007 (EDT)