Talk:Europe/Hierarchy/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:Eastern Europe

Moved from Talk:Eastern Europe

I disagree with Professorbiscuit's move to squish the Baltic countries and Central Europe into "Eastern Europe", and I suspect many inhabitants of those countries would do so well. The definition of the term has changed since the wall came down: these days "Central Europe" is the countries that have joined the EU, and "Eastern Europe" is the bit that hasn't. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:44, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

That's not necessarily the best definition, and possibly a bit confusing for the traveller (ie Italy="Western Europe", Slovenia ="Central Europe", Croatia="Eastern Europe", despite the fact that they almost have a common border). No geographical division of Europe is going to be perfect, but at least there are now maps up to give a rough idea. I had the new proposed ideas for the new Europe regions up on Talk:Europe for a while, and nobody objected. Also, a similar division of Europe is used by another famous of brand of travel guide. Not that I'm saying we should copy them, but it seems to serve them very well. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 09:23, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)
I second (WT-en) Jpatokal on that this division is incorrect. To me it smells political section into "east block" and "west block" from the cold war and has not much to do with tourism. Why not simply use the division adopted in Wikipedia ? (WT-en) Wojsyl 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (EST)

Talk:Western Europe

Moved from Talk:Western Europe

Hi, Cyprus is not in Western Europe ! (WT-en) Yann 18:14, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

Yes, I agree. I am changing the list of countries now because there are two major flaws: one - neither Cyrpus nor Malta are Western European, two - they are countries, not just islands. Putting them under islands and not under countries is insulting ;-) (WT-en) Ronline 02:59, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

Talk:Central Europe

Moved from Talk:Central Europe

This should be called Estern Europe. Central Europe usually also includes Autria, Germany and Switzerland. (WT-en) Yann 18:57, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

I see a big mistake being made here with the European hierarchy. Central Europe is a legitimate region of Europe and not a euphemism. The Visegrad 4 countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary) are more often than not considered part of Central Europe. Eastern Europe is actually, I believe, not a region of Europe in the sense of it being comparable to Central Europe. Eastern Europe is the broad (very broad) definition given to all former-Communist European countries, including Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Czechia, Hungary, Albania, etc. However, these countries have now been divided into regions: Central Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic States (if we consider that a region) and the former Soviet Union (this can sometimes be called Eastern Europe, in the same way that Serbia and Montenegro used to be called Yugoslavia). Therefore we get:
Central Europe: for sure Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. Also frequently includes Slovenia and Romania - Transylvania makes up the majority of Romania and is part of Central Europe. Slovenia is culturally part of Central Europe more than the Balkans.
Balkans: former Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, etc.
Former Soviet Union (can be called Eastern Europe): Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, European Russia
Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, Lithunia
There remain two problems: the Baltic States and Germany/Austria, etc. The Baltic States can be split up, with Estonia being part of Northern Europe, with Finland and Sweden, and the rest being part of Central Europe. Now, with Germany and Austria, these are NOWADAYS not regarded as Central European countries, even though making them part of Central Europe is a fair defintion. However, people have this fear of grouping Germany together with Poland, Czechia, etc. This is possible. Why not?. These countries are in fact part of the same region.
Therefore, we can have:
Central Europe: Austria, Germany, perhaps Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Visegrad 4. Slovenia and Romania could be included, but it would be too many countries in one region.
Therefore, in my opinion, the best proposal would be to place Germany and Austria/Switzerland either in a separate region called "the Alps" for example, or even better, group them with Western Europe. OK, now probably Western Europe will seem to large a region, but this is not the case, because we can have:
Western Europe: DE, FR, Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Italy and maybe Spain, maybe UK and Ireland
Mediterranean: Maybe Spain, definitely Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, maybe Turkey
Northern Europe: Scandinavia, Faeroes, Iceland, Finland, maybe Estonia.
Therefore, the hierarchy problem is solved. Europe is divided into groups that are both politically fair and forward-looking, and more important, relevant to tourists. Tourists do visit Germany and Belgium together. They do visit Cyprus, Turkey and Greece together. They do visit

Romania, Hungary and Czechia together. And, arguably, they visit Estonia, Sweden and Finland together. (WT-en) Ronline 02:58, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

So this is the conversation that needs to be happening on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. There's no point reasoning it out on each of the sub-pages (Central, Wester, etc), so could we move it over there where it can get hashed out and then have everyone working on it? thanks (WT-en) Majnoona 09:23, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

Talk:Europe

Moved from Talk:Europe

Hierarchy

Hmm, what continental sections could we use


Can somebody give me a good reason why each country should only appear once? Example: Estonia is a Baltic state sometimes regarded as lying in Scandinavia and is a former Soviet republic, so not adding it under those three makes this list quite arbitrary. (WT-en) DhDh 13:50, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)

I see your point, and the fact that Wikivoyage isn't paper-based means there can be multiple ways to get to a country article. On the other hand, I imagine we would have an overview map with the continental sections marked, and it would therefore make sense to be able to draw dividing lines. (WT-en) Matthewmayer 15:03, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)
A couple of things: Wikivoyage is paper-based. OK, not -based, but we do want things to work on paper as well as on-line.
Second: I agree about maps. --(WT-en) Evan 15:23, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)

I agree with Dhum Dhum about the issues with Estonia and similar countries. I think we shouldn't really double up any countries, but if necessary, we should do so. Really, I think Estonia shouldn't be doubled up. I still have something against the name Scandinavia as a category - Scandinavia really only contains Sweden, Denmark and Norway, and maybe Iceland, but in no way really Finland and the rest of the countries listed there. I know Northern Europe probably sounds worse, but it's better in terms of category. In Northern Europe, we could list Estonia as well, and Finland, etc, because when people go to these places, they are more likely to couple these countries together (a lot of people visit Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland together, and then make two-day trips to Estonia, or maybe to the Faeroe Islands, but you can't really make all these countries Scandinavian). Anyway, I've sorted out the countries an alternative way at the Romanian Wikivoyage, which is similar in terms of structure but just a bit different in terms of which countries go where (you can see it at ro:Europa. -- (WT-en) Ronline 17:17, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)

The problem with divisions like these is that they are based on different criteria: geological (eg. the Alps), political/cultural/geographical (eg. Western Europe) and historical (eg. the former Soviet Union), all heaped together. You are bound to get overlaps this way. I think there are two solutions to this problem: we either choose only one way to split up Europe -- but that will be a difficult choice, or we accept that there is overlap. I see no problem with applying the latter in the Europe article: we can have more than one map where regional borders are drawn following different criteria. I am convinced that an article about the Alps needs to have information on the French Alps, the Slovenian Alps and everything in between (because that's what I, as a traveller, would expect), otherwise you should just call it the Swiss Alps or something. The same goes for the former Soviet Union which by all means must include the Baltic States. Etc... DhDh.

Yes, I agree with overlap - it's a good thing sometimes. But, I think we should just sort out the categories in blocks of countries that tourists are bound to visit together (i.e. Central Europe, with Hungary, Poland, Czechia, etc. and Northern Europe, with Finland, Sweden, Norway, etc.). The only place where overlap would really occur is concerning the Baltic States, Northern Europe and the former USSR. So, it could be sorted out the following way:
I think the Baltic States category is unnecessary. With all respects for the Baltics, few people would actually visit these states alone, and they are too small a region to be classified alone. They are, however, very different from the former USSR - politically, economically and most of all culturally, which impacts on tourism. The Baltic States are very rarely classified as the former Soviet Union today - they will soon be part of the EU, they've moved past that stage. Among themselves, they're also very different, meaning that they can be broken up among other regions - Estonia could go with Northern Europe (it classifies itself as a Northern European country, and the vast majority of people visiting it actually make side trips from Finland, not from Russia or from Latvia, Poland, etc). Latvia and Lithuania could go in Central Europe - they're more likely to be in the same travel itinerary as Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, etc. So, finally, I think the categories should be arranged touristically (if that's a word ;-), which after all, shouldn't be hard to do.
Concerning the Alps region, I think it's also an unnecessary category - all those countries (except Slovenia) should go in Western Europe, since they're bound to be visited together (i.e. a lot of people visit France, Austria, Germany, Spain, etc in a Grand Tour of Europe). I think the Alps just further complicates the structure, also since a lot of the countries there aren't really Apline countries. France and Germany, for example, are mainly visited for other destinations than the Alps - it's really only Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein who are renowned for their Alpine destinations. (WT-en) Ronline 18:44, 2 Jan 2004 (EST)
I have no problem with overlap, but I would disagree with the claim that few people would visit Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia alone. There are several travel companies based in the United Kingdom which offer trips through these three countries alone - and I would argue that the majority of British people (possibly Western Europeans) think of them as the Baltic states. (WT-en) MykReeve 01:12, 03 Jan 2004 (GMT)
I visited (just) the three Baltic States last summer, and I had a Lonely Planet guidebook covering all three. I'd suggest keeping that category, they are different from many Eastern European countries and the former USSR. We could rename Scandinavia to 'Nordic countries' be be less ambiguous [1]. I think the aim with the categories should be to have categories narrow enough so that sensible generalisations can be made in the guidebook sections of the category page, but wide enough so that we're not just duplicating stuff in the country articles. 81.131.154.109 07:45, 3 Jan 2004 (EST)

Turkey and Russia really should not be in the Europe section. Russia is really an asian nation (even if parts west of the Urals get lumped in with Europe now and then); and while I know that Turkey technically has a tiny bit that's European, it really is a mid-eastern country. If anything, include them in the special note at the end. But they're really not European nations. -(WT-en) nils 23:20, 8 JAN 2004 (CET)

Russia spans two continents. St Petersburg and Moscow are European cities really, not Asian. Anyway, we can link through both from the Europe and Asia articles. (WT-en) Matthewmayer 17:48, 8 Jan 2004 (EST)

The British Isles

I think this page would be more userfriendly if the Irish page was separate from the British isles; for Irish users at least. Whatever about the political history of the names we just do not view ourselves as being part of the British isles -rather we see ourselves part of Europe.

Actually, the United Kingdom is a political area but the British Isles is a geographic area which does include Ireland. The Irish users can probably go directly to the Ireland page, but other users are going to expect to be able to navigate to it from British Isles.

[2]. (WT-en) Majnoona


The British Isles is the name we use for the cluster of islands off the northwest edge of Europe. No matter some Irish people's distaste for any meager association with the UK, Ireland just isn't tucked somewhere between Austria and Switzerland. It's in this island group.
The traveller comes first on Wikivoyage. We need to call a spade a spade. We're not going to make a map that shows Ireland anchored off the coast of France, and we're not going to bowlderize the geographical hierarchy just so two countries who don't like each other don't get mentioned on the same page. This isn't kindergarten -- it's a travel guide. --(WT-en) Evan 11:01, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)

Well it just goes to show how stupid people who contribute to this site are.Again i see people excusing the incorrect interpretation of the term "British Isles".If Ireland is not part of Britain including Northern Ireland how the hell can it be part of the "British Isles"It has never been part of Britain see Act of Union 1800.N Ireland is not part of Britain either.From a factual point of view you are all wrong.

Hierarchy (2)

I am more than unhappy with this seemingly random division of Europe. Just to give one example: Belgium is not considered part of Western Europe, while Cyprus, lying in the extreme Southeast is. If I'm a traveller and the traveller comes first, I would be more than confused with this kind of hierarchy. In the next few days I'll try to work out an alternative proposal. (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 12:03, 21 Mar 2004 (EST)

I agree, go for it.-- maybe create Talk:Europe/Hierarchy? I know we'll always have more than one index to European countries, which is a good thing, but I'd like to see at least one "common sense" traveller-oriented version-- ie where Cyprus is not west of Belgium. (WT-en) Majnoona 13:28, 21 Mar 2004 (EST)
So, I agree about the hierarchy. I'll do another pass on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. --(WT-en) Evan 15:30, 21 Mar 2004 (EST)~
Hey, so I've noticed Yann and maybe others doing a lot of moving, reorging the Europe pages. Could we maybe hash it out on the

Talk:Europe/Hierarchy page before doing stuff? I just dont want it to turn to edit wars and rollbacks. Maybe just agree on round of changes and then makes them go... otherwise it seems like duplicate work (WT-en) Majnoona 20:32, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

New continent format

I threw together a new Europe page in my sandbox, http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/article/User:Professorbiscuit/Sandbox/Europe Would anyone be opposed to adopting this style for continents? (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 17:23, 11 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Cities! I want cities.  ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 17:49, 11 Sep 2004 (EDT)
I know Greece is part of the European Union, but since when has it ever been considered part of Western Europe, rather than a part of the Balkans? I don't understand its inclusion with Western European states on the Europe page at all. Does that make Cyprus part of Western Europe on the same reasoning? I think not. While I'm on this, the Eastern Europe division is way too large and unwieldy - I think we should divide it into Eastern Europe (Hungary northwards to the Baltic) and the Balkans (south of Hungary down to Greece.... Any comments? (WT-en) Pjamescowie 12:16, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
I agree completely! Divide Eastern Europe into the Balkans and (possibly) the Baltic States. Anybody else? -(WT-en) nick 23:11, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)

I'm a bit confuzed with the current division. Where's the Central Europe? Wouldn't it be easier and more logic to use the official Regions of Europe?

I agree that a Central Europe region needs to be created. My proposal, following Wikipedia, is to move Switzerland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary into this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:57, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)
Agree with (WT-en) Jpatokal. Use Wikipedia and don't invent new artificial divisions. (WT-en) Wojsyl 16:35, 27 Dec 2004 (EST)
I too Agree with (WT-en) Jpatokal. (WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
Take a look at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#Proposed_solution, where I posted a map proposing to divide Europe into 5 intuitive regions: Western, Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern. Comments Welcome. (WT-en) Wojsyl 14:13, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)
The problem, of course, with all divisions of Europe is that they are arbitary and a bit confusing. There are no "official regions of Europe", and I feel that adding too many more regions will merely cause difficulty. I suggested the current five divisions for several reasons.
  • They are similar to the divisions used by a well-known brand of travel book (cough <<lonely planet>> cough). Not that we have to copy them, but the average traveller in Europe is familiar with these books, and will recognise the divisions.
I assume you are referring to the Western Europe guide. [3]. However Lonley planet also publishes a guide called Central Europe. [4] In it it lists the countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland. But as you said we should not copy them. (WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • The 7 plus or minus 2 rule. Five categories make more sense than 9.
I can agree with you on this one. But the Wikipedia article mentions only five regions. If we only want five regions I would preferr we scrape the British Isles instead of central Europe. (WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • Having travelled a lot in Europe, I believe that the "Eastern" countries do have many in common; they are generally cheaper to travel in and are post-communist societies. The other regions do have things in common, as well.
While for example Vienna may have some things in common with Paris, it has a lot more in common with Prague or Budapest. Central Europe as proposed by Jpatokal has a common heritage that can be felt everywhere. Architecture, traditions, food, words, ... (WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • It saves us from pointless arguments as "Is Hungary a part of the Balkans? How about Romania? And so on.
I personally think that the way Wikipedia categorizes the regions of Europe is a quite good one. If you we don't want to argue about to whom Hungary belongs we would have to remove all destinctions. But that's probably not what we want. As far as Hungary is concerned, both Wikipedia (w:Hungary) as well as Britannica define it as a central European Country. As far as Romania is concerned Wikipedia (w:Romania) defines it as a southeastern european country and the Britannica defines it as belonging to the Balkan.(WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • Most importantly, they are the easiest for the traveller, for a combination of the reasons above. I strongly believe that the European regional divisions be left as they are. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 14:11, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)
While less regions are a good thing, they have to be devided up if parts of a region are just too different. This is the case with Europe as a whole. That's why we are having this discussion. However as mentioned earlier by myself, Vienna is different from Paris, but very similar to Prague. Therefore we must have a region called central Europe. (WT-en) Fido 15:07, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)

annoying - unaware of facts

It is indeed annoying to see that a country like Slovenia, between Vienna and Venice, is categorised as "eastern Europe". Meanwhile a Balkan state like Greece is categorised as part of Western Europe. Which cold war muppet is acting without any awareness of historical and political contexts?

The muppet you're looking for is User:(WT-en) Professorbiscuit. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:17, 11 Jan 2005 (EST)
Whilst "cold war muppet" is certainly amongst my favourite insults I've heard in a while, I'm beginning to get sick of people whingeing about the Europe divisions. For the slow learners amongst you, this site is called "WikiTravel". Note the "wiki" bit. It's not called "Professor Biscuit's Travel", so if you hate it so much then edit the damn page. Call the area from Vladivostok to Geneva "Central Europe" if you feel so inclined.
Perhaps if even half the amount of time that's been spent complaining on the pointless subject of how to divide best Europe into a bunch of pretty colours had been spent writing actual destination guides, the whole site would be a lot better. To the above Mr. Anonymous, if you feel the need to insult people because they think Slovenia is in eastern rather than central Europe, you should perhaps grow up a little. If you feel a desperate need to discuss geopolitics with me, leave it on my talk page or email me. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 19:32, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)
The reason so much ink is being spilled on this is that it's a controversial topic and it would be nice to come to a compromise that most people can agree on. Such consensus was not achieved before the current division was implemented... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:40, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)
Oh, come on. I left around a month for people to raise objections before I plunged forward and made the changes. To be honest, I'm beginning to take the continual insults and insinuations personally, especially when I have not done a thing wrong. Calling me a muppet is out of line, Jpatokal, especially since you are an admin. You should apologise. I'm washing my hands of this godforsaken Europe page, and it is a shame that people that people should be hounded for such ridiculous reasons. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (EST)
The "muppet" thing was Mr. Anonymous's wording, not mine, and I was just pointing to you as the author of the current layout — so sorry if I caused offence. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:29, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Obviously it is quite controversial if it heats things up almost to a flame war. To put stop to this, I'm going to edit the related pages to reflect what I've proposed at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#Proposed_solution if no one objects. (WT-en) Wojsyl 18:24, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Talk:Europe/Hierarchy

Moved from Talk:Europe/Hierarchy

Hierarchy

This is a proposed hierarchy for the countries in Europe. Feel free to edit.

  • British Isles (section)
    • United Kingdom (country)
    • Ireland (country)
    • Channel Islands, Isle of Man (territories)
  • Iberian Peninsula (section)
    • Portugal (country)
    • Spain (country)
    • Andorra (country)
    • Gibraltar (territory)
  • France (country and section!)
  • Benelux (section)
    • Belgium (country)
    • The Netherlands (country)
    • Luxembourg (country)
  • Scandinavia (section)
    • Norway (country)
    • Denmark (country)
    • Sweden (country)
    • Finland (country)
    • Iceland (country)
    • Faroe Islands (territory)
  • Central Europe (section)
    • Germany (country)
    • Switzerland (country)
    • Austria (country)
    • Liechtenstein (country)
    • Italy [+ Vatican City] (countries)
    • San Marino (country)
    • Malta (country)
  • Eastern Europe (section)
    • Poland (country)
    • Hungary (country)
    • Czech Republic (country)
    • Slovakia (country)
    • Russia (country)
    • Belarus (country)
    • Ukraine (country)
    • Moldova (country)
  • Baltic states (section)
    • Estonia (country)
    • Latvia (country)
    • Lithuania (country)
  • Balkans (section)
    • Slovenia (country)
    • Croatia (country)
    • Bosnia & Herzegovina (country)
    • Serbia & Montenegro (country)
    • Albania (country)
    • Bulgaria (country)
    • Romania (country)
    • FYRO Macedonia (country)
  • Eastern Mediterranean (section)
    • Greece (country)
    • Turkey (country)
    • Cyprus (country)

Important info about hierarchy of Europe

I see a big mistake being made here with the European hierarchy. Central Europe is a legitimate region of Europe and not a euphemism. The Visegrad 4 countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary) are more often than not considered part of Central Europe. Eastern Europe is actually, I believe, not a region of Europe in the sense of it being comparable to Central Europe. Eastern Europe is the broad (very broad) definition given to all former-Communist European countries, including Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Czechia, Hungary, Albania, etc. However, these countries have now been divided into regions: Central Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic States (if we consider that a region) and the former Soviet Union (this can sometimes be called Eastern Europe, in the same way that Serbia and Montenegro used to be called Yugoslavia). Therefore we get:

Central Europe: for sure Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. Also frequently includes Slovenia and Romania - Transylvania makes up the majority of Romania and is part of Central Europe. Slovenia is culturally part of Central Europe more than the Balkans.

Balkans: former Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, etc.

Former Soviet Union (can be called Eastern Europe): Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, European Russia

Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, Lithunia

There remain two problems: the Baltic States and Germany/Austria, etc. The Baltic States can be split up, with Estonia being part of Northern Europe, with Finland and Sweden, and the rest being part of Central Europe. Now, with Germany and Austria, these are NOWADAYS not regarded as Central European countries, even though making them part of Central Europe is a fair defintion. However, people have this fear of grouping Germany together with Poland, Czechia, etc. This is possible. Why not?. These countries are in fact part of the same region.

Therefore, we can have:

Central Europe: Austria, Germany, perhaps Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Visegrad 4. Slovenia and Romania could be included, but it would be too many countries in one region.

Therefore, in my opinion, the best proposal would be to place Germany and Austria/Switzerland either in a separate region called "the Alps" for example, or even better, group them with Western Europe. OK, now probably Western Europe will seem to large a region, but this is not the case, because we can have:

Western Europe: DE, FR, Switzerland, Austria, Benelux, Italy and maybe Spain, maybe UK and Ireland
Mediterranean: Maybe Spain, definitely Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, maybe Turkey
Northern Europe: Scandinavia, Faeroes, Iceland, Finland, maybe Estonia.

Therefore, the hierarchy problem is solved. Europe is divided into groups that are both politically fair and forward-looking, and more important, relevant to tourists. Tourists do visit Germany and Belgium together. They do visit Cyprus, Turkey and Greece together. They do visit Romania, Hungary and Czechia together. And, arguably, they visit Estonia, Sweden and Finland together. (WT-en) Ronline 02:58, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

We need a Mediterranean Europe page. From climate, food and culture point of view, this makes sense. Putting Italy in Central Europe doesn't. It would also include Spain, Portugal, Malta, maybe Greece. (WT-en) Yann 08:30, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
Yeah, I would tend to think that that might be useful. The main thing of course is helping travlers find the article about their destination. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:11, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
Exactly! Wikivoyage is supposed to be for travellers. But the more I look at this discussion and the previous one at Talk:Europe, I get the feeling that we're more or less talking alongside each other. We cannot ignore the fact that Europe, being a patchwork of countries, cultures and peoples, is very hard to divide in regions.
Can we divide Europe along political lines? I don't think so. During the last 10-15 years we have seen major shifts in politics - simply said: a substantial number of countries have gone from communism to capitalism. And even now political borders are changing (cfr. the EU).
Along cultural lines then? Maybe a little bit easier, but not much. We have seen a lot of cultural exchanges in the past years. Speaking for my home country, I wonder if there still is a Belgian identity. The larger cities resemble the towers of Babel, with all those different languages you hear. (And these people are not only tourists. They live here.)
So what can we use? As said before, Wikivoyage is for travellers, and we should group countries that people tend to visit together. The main "problem" (at least, some view it as such) is that in this respect, quite a few countries belong to different "groups". Speaking again for Belgium, it is true that people who visit us also visit the Netherlands. Or Germany. Or France. The point I'm making is that, if we want to make it easy for travellers to find the article(s) of their destination, we will have to make overlaps.
I realize some people around here are a bit afraid of that. I don't understand why. A region is a container for subjects on a lower level (be it countries, other regions, whatever...). If a given country is contained within a region, it means that it has affinities with the other countries within that region (which can and should be explained in that article). And if that same country is contained within another region, it simply means that it has (other) affinities with the countries in that region (which can and should be explained in that article). To me, creating "exclusive" regions (containig countries belonging exclusively to that region) is creating problems.
So, I have made a hierarchy of Europe, based on ("inclusive") regions which can be defined as broadly as wanted. I'd be glad to know what you think of them:
  • Northern Europe (section)
    • Iceland (country)
    • Faroe Islands (territory)
    • Scandinavia (region)
      • Norway (country)
      • Sweden (country)
      • Finland (country)
      • Denmark (country)
    • Estonia (country)
  • Northwestern Europe (section)
    • British Isles (region)
      • Ireland (country)
      • United Kingdom (country)
      • Channel Islands (territory)
      • etc...
    • Denmark (country)
    • Germany (country)
    • Benelux (region)
      • Netherlands (country)
      • Belgium (country)
      • Luxembourg (country)
    • Switzerland (country)
    • Liechtenstein (country)
    • Austria (country)
  • Central Europe (section)
    • Germany (country)
    • Poland (country)
    • Czech Republic (country)
    • Slovakia (country)
    • Switzerland (country)
    • Liechtenstein (country)
    • Austria (country)
    • Slovenia (country)
    • Hungary (country)
    • Romania (country)
  • Eastern Europe (section)
    • Russia (country)
    • Baltic States (region)
      • Estonia (country)
      • Latvia (country)
      • Lithuania (country)
    • Belarus (country)
    • Ukraine (country)
    • Moldova (country)
    • Romania (country)
  • Southwestern Europe (section)
    • Belgium (country)
    • Luxembourg (country)
    • France (country)
    • Switzerland (country)
    • Iberian Peninsula (region)
      • Andorra (country)
      • Portugal (country)
      • Spain (country)
      • Gibraltar (territory)
    • Monaco (country)
    • Italy (country)
    • San Marino (country)
    • Vatican City (country)
  • Balkans (section)
    • Hungary (country)
    • Romania (country)
    • Slovenia (country)
    • Croatia (country)
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina (country)
    • Serbia and Montenegro (country)
    • Albania (country)
    • Macedonia (country)
    • Bulgaria (country)
    • Greece (country)
    • Turkey (country)
  • Mediterranean Europe (section)
    • Portugal (country)
    • Spain (country)
    • Gibraltar (territory)
    • France (country)
    • Monaco (country)
    • Italy (country)
    • Greece (country)
    • Turkey (country)
    • Malta (country)
    • Cyprus (country)
(WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 10:31, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
The overlaps work fine for me! What are the arguments against them? Like I said this is about helping the traveler find the destination page that he or she wants right? -- (WT-en) Mark 12:15, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
Overlaps are definitely a good idea as it will help people find the destination they're looking for. That said, I think it would be good for each country to have a primary section for two reasons - 1. so that (when it gets implemented) each page can have a breadcrumb navigation bar (eg Europe > Mediterranean Europe > Spain), and 2. so that we can have a clickable map of Europe with the sections highlighted, so a visitor can easily visualise the hierarchy we have developed.
Overlaps make it hard for us to make maps. They make it hard to know where to put information, and they cause duplicate information. I'd prefer to avoid them when possible. --(WT-en) Evan 21:14, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
I almost hate to point this out, but all of these arguments sound like they favor contributors over travelers. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:12, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)
I'd like to have traditional English names for sections of Europe wherever possible. I don't think there's much of a point to Northwestern Europe or Southwestern Europe. I've never heard of these things. They're made up, and they don't help travelers find what they're looking for. --(WT-en) Evan 21:14, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)
OK, this makes sense to me. Since the hireachy is about helping travelers find information about their destinations, then perhaps areas that travelers won't recognize aren't all that useful. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:12, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)
Some remarks/questions:
Breadcrumb navigation: unless my understanding of this is completely wrong I suppose this gives readers an easy way to move up to the previous level or down to the next level. If this gets automated, is there anything against having, say "Europe -> Balkans -> Greece -> Athens" (if you followed the Balkans link) and "Europe -> Mediterranean Europe -> Greece -> Athens" (if you followed the Mediterranean Europe link)?
Clickable maps: I see the problem with these. But if we are going to have them, at least something needs to be changed in the software. I don't have an immediate answer to it right now, but at this point I think we shouldn't rule out a complete incompatibility with overlaps. Every problem should have its solution, right?
Duplicate information: I don't really see the problem. Let's take the example of Greece again (Balkans and Mediterranean Europe). The Balkans article talks about the countries belonging to that region and what binds them together. In it can be explained why Greece, following a certain number of criteria, belongs to that region. On the other hand, and following other criteria, Greece belongs to Mediterranean Europe. Part of that article can explain why. To me, that is not duplicate information.
Northwestern/Southwestern Europe: Yes, it's true that these names are not widespread. I split them up because otherwise "Western Europe" would have become too heavy. And I more or less did it along linguistic lines (Latin vs. Germanic languages). On the other hand, and referring again to the clickable maps, they would show immediately what is meant by these names.
(WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 12:40, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

My suggestion is to use the KISS system. Keep it simple, stupid. Forget a hundred artificial sections. There are so many definitions, none set in stone and some that keep changing around depending on who uses them and what for. For example, Western Europe was everything west of the iron curtain - nowadays it's harder to make the distinction. Where does it start? East of Germany? West of Germany? You're bound to have many, many overlaps - Central Europe definitely includes Germany, for example; but what else. Poland? France? We will never find a "perfect definition".

Hence let's just use "travel"-like destinations:

  • British Isles (easily defined, and have a common "theme/culture")
  • Scnadinavia (dito)
  • Continental Europe (everything on the "mainland", ie. excluding Scandinavia and British Isles but including denmark)
  • Alpine Nations (everything that touches the Alps)
  • North Sea states (everything that touches the North Sea)
  • Baltic Sea states (same, for baltic sea)
  • Mediterranean states (same, for mediterranean sea)

That's it. Plain, simple, straight forward. We also have a "European countries by alphabet", and hoepfully maybe some day a map (clickable or not doesn't matter, as long as it's labelled) and a "European Union" page. (The is very important because it's relevant to travellers; but I seem to remember we had that discussion before and agreed it's OK.)

A traveller goes either to one country (then sections aren't needed, just pick the country by alphabet) or he will make a tour of nearby countries (then a map is needed). And for those who are looking for a "regional feel" or "topic", we have the sections I list above. Alpine for those who want skiing/mountains, for example. This could be augmented by articles about regions or multi-country vacations (similar to the one about the landroute from Europe to Asia).

If "Continental Europe" is too big, divide it between "East" and "West" (use the eastern border of Germany as the divide). I do not like this, however; I feel it's a "cold war" leftover more than anything and it introduces too much complexity.

List special cases under the appropriate countries (Example: Gibraltar in the article for UK/England, but maybe link it from Spain as well). Don't list them all in the lists. Nobody really cares that, for example, Vatican City is a sovereign nation. People will look for the pope under "italy -> rome". Likewise, I seriously doubt anybody says "Hey let's make a vacation in the Balkans". They want Greece, or (former) Yusgoslavia, or maybe "any country at the Adriatic sea". Travel guide - not an encyclopedia. Leave that to our buddies at wikipedia.org.

And a final note about breadcrumb navigation: Simply do it like so: "Europe > Germany > Frankfurt". No further abstraction is needed.

--(WT-en) Nils 20:15, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

Do you think 5 sections would be too few?

  • British Isles
  • Scandinavia and Northern Europe
  • Western Europe
  • Central and Eastern Europe
  • Southern and Mediterranean Europe

(WT-en) Matthewmayer 21:11, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

Five sections seem fair, but ...
Just keep it in line with wikipedia's grouping, which is correct, moreover keeps it simple and away of cold war political and regional divisions:
  • Western Europe
  • Eastern Europe
  • Northern Europe
  • Southern Europe
  • Central Europe
Why would anyone want to reinvent the division here ?
(WT-en) Wojsyl 16:24, 27 Dec 2004 (EST)
Seriously, there is nothing 'official' about Wikipedia's Europe divisions. They were arbitrarily made-up. There is no argument in saying that we have to do things the way they do. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 09:37, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)
Not at all. And being 'not official' does not mean that they're not good. And we are free to use the divisions worked out there. They are simple, clear, non controversial, not biased, well explained, historically and culturally correct and above all: easy to understand and accept. What do we need more. Does anyone object against using it here ? (WT-en) Wojsyl 10:38, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)


Well, I do, obviously. Firstly, the maps of the regions took a long time to make, and noone objected to the new divisions before they were put up. Most importantly, the current distinctions make more sense to the the traveller. The countries "Eastern Europe" (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc.) make much more sense of a traveller's destination than a "Central European" tour comprising Switzerland and Slovakia. Wikipedia may have the more politically correct distinctions, but they make no sense here. This is not the place for political point-scoring for Irish people who object to the term "British Isles" and Polish people who don't want to be in "Eastern Europe". (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 13:58, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)


No, sorry, they do not make more sense to the traveller. On the contrary, they are misguiding but what's even worse, they show arogance and no respect to people living there. Very much unlike a real traveller's attitude and certainly not something we should be promoting.
The argument about the effort put into making the map is fair and I understand that you can be emotionally tied to it, but hey, the sooner we correct it the less work will be involved in future corrections. I would suggest using the map from Wikipedia. It shows the division quite clearly. (WT-en) Wojsyl 15:45, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)

Talk:Poland

Moved from Talk:Poland

Poland lays in Central Europe

AFAIK Poland was always considered as being in Central Europe, not in Eastern. Just look at the map (and do not forget about European part of Russia) Also Poland is in Central European time zone (same as Paris) -- oposed to Ukraine which is in Eastern European TZ.

Also see here:

(WT-en) JanSlupski 14:51, 17 Dec 2004 (EST)

Ok, found the discussion in the Talk:Europe now. Polish people rather would say that Poland is in Central Europe. But if rest of the world name it Eastern, I have to accept ;) (WT-en) JanSlupski 16:17, 17 Dec 2004 (EST)

Not really, I think this is a major mistake with division of Europe (and particularly definition of Eastern Europe) here on WikiT and needs to be corrected asap. (WT-en) Wojsyl 02:46, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)

Idetrorce

very interesting, but I don't agree with you Idetrorce

Also it could be useful to archive lare parts of hierarchy discussion from Talk:Europe and top of this page to something like Talk:Europe/Hierarchy/Archive, and add there links to 1) Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#Proposed_solution, 2) Archive to make navigation easier. Currently it's very long, and distributed. -- (WT-en) Jan Słupski 17:30, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)

No votes against (no votes of support as well), so just did that. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 15:45, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

Please someone edit this map division, clearly everyone who reads it from Europe will see that the divisions are wrong and will give visitors the wrong idea about the culture of Europe, par example: Britain, France, Germany and Spain are all Cultulrly part of western euirope as well as politically. YOu only have to go on Google images and then type in divisions of Europe to see the true Cutural Divions. thank you

Proposed solution

Guys, here's the the proposal for division of Europe that hopefully will satisfy everyone (... OK, I know I'm being so naive here). I admit this is mostly addressing the Central Europe controversy. Let's keep it simple and keep Europe divided into Western, Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern. I've rearranged the colours on (WT-en) Professorbiscuit's map to better illustrate this:

I believe this division satisfies the following criteria:

  • Up-to date - it's 2005 and wikivoyage is supposed to be futureproof for the next several years and it's important not to use archaic/outdated systematisation. We have no more Austrohungarian empire, no more Czechoslovakia and no more "two Europes".
  • Simple and intuitive - keeps the number of regions down to 5. As a traveller pick any European country, look at the 5 regions and think where would your particular country best fit ?
  • Politically neutral - the cold war and iron curtain is over for several years already. There's no reason to artificially divide Europe in line with military or other political pacts. It's much better to have the division based on geography, not politics.
  • Not confusing for the traveller - we're not calling regions what they're not and avoiding unnecessary further confusion.
  • Correct, and as an extra bonus in line with Wikipedia ;-) (yes, I remember the argument that we don't have to do it the same way, but it does not mean we cannot ?)
  • NPOV - I know that historically for the Brits Europe consisted of "UK + the continent", while many Americans still believe there is "East" and "West" and the Berlin wall in between. Wikivoyage however is for global audience and NPOV should be respected with this in mind.
  • Respect - does not ignore what local people call themselves. Respect is an important quality for any traveller and I strongly believe should be promoted on wikivoyage.

What do you think ? (WT-en) Wojsyl 14:07, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)

nice (WT-en) Tobias Conradi 22:50, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
I like this too. I'm tempted to shift Germany and Switzerland over to Western Europe, and the Baltics to Northern though -- but I could be argued the other way too, as this is admittedly more political than geographical. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:33, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)
As for Germany, for most Germans it's quite obvious that they are in the heart of "Mitteleuropa". It seems both historically and geographically justified to have German speaking countries in Central Europe. In fact they have coined the term in the first place.
For the Baltics, I'm not sure. Again, politcally I'd gladly see them in Northern, however if you're going to Lithuania, do you think you're going to Northern Europe or rather Eastern ? Certainly they would deserve their separate small group of the Baltics, but this is sacrified here for the sake of simplicity. So here "Northern" equals Scandinavian, which again is a simplification of course. This is like asking whether Italy is an Alpine or Mediterrenean country. No good answer. (WT-en) Wojsyl 04:10, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
I like this solution also. Much better than what we have now. Only Lithuania, Latavia and Estonia were always Baltic States for me, no Eastern or Northern. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 20:19, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)
Having not really participated in the conversation before I feel I can say as a neutral party that I like the proposed solution as well. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:40, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)
Can I echo that last assessment please? The reasons outlined make a very good case for a compass-point division.... Everything else is just outdated politics and cultural cringe. The only variations I would suggest to the scheme is that Romania and Bulgaria might be moved into Eastern Europe to better reflect their geographical position (NOT their cultural affiliation! - about to join the EU....) - that way nearly 'all the countries in Southern Europe would basically be those with a Mediterranean coastline, providing a useful alternative designation / characterisation for the region as "Mediterranean Europe". What do others think about this proposal? (WT-en) Pjamescowie 06:30, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)
I like it, and would in fact suggest we use the term Mediterranean Europe only. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:31, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)


Mediterranean is quite tempting, even if it destroys the simplicity of compass-point, but seems more intuitive indeed. As for the Baltics, I think we should not attempt to list all the smaller regions like Benelux, the Balkans etc. and keep the division general at this level, instead. I've also moved Romania and Bulgaria as (WT-en) Pjamescowie suggests. So here we are:

  • Western Europe = the British Isles, France and Benelux.
  • Northern Europe = Scandinavia, Island and Finland
  • Central Europe = Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia
  • Eastern Europe = Baltic countries, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia.
  • Mediterranean Europe - Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Italy, San Marino, Vatican, Monaco, Greece, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Cyprus, Turkey and Malta.

I'd leave it for a few more days here to see if there are still any strong opposing views around. Otherwise, I'll assume that the consensus has has been finally reached. (WT-en) Wojsyl 17:07, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)

Maybe for these last few days create announcement on main Europe page, to attract more attention, like: -- (WT-en) Jan Słupski 17:30, 24 Jan 2005 (EST)


  Europe Hierarchy is currently being reworked. You can add you comment on a discussion page

All right, no more voices, I assume the consensus has been reached. I have then implemented the division. (WT-en) Wojsyl 18:55, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

I think the Baltic States belong rather to Nordic countries, Northern Europe I mean. Hope it's not too late. -- (WT-en) bujatt 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I think the so called Baltic States should be replaces with the names of the countries. Estonia and Lithuania are very very different politically, culturally and historically. Also, being called an Eastern European country is pretty offensive, at least in Estonia.

True, it is offensive. According to Wikipedia at least, the Baltics do belong to Northern Europe. Why should Estonia, which practically shares its language and culture with Finland, be in the same group with Azerbaijan or Armenia. They are nothing alike. Estonians see themselves as part of Northern Europe, why can't everyone else see it too? 90.191.200.134 10:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Why is the grouping as it is shown? I cannot find any source backing the proposed grouping. Am I right, when I assume that this map is original research? Otherwise, please provide a reference to a source that proposes exactly this grouping. We might still have an POV issue then, but at least have some backing to our claim, which is the less severe of the two options. If there exists no reference (perhaps Lonely Planet, I know that they do similar groupings) then, I am afraid we will have to remove the map. 82.210.100.28 18:40, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

European map colors

I really like design where not foucsed contries on the map are gray (like on Baltic states map).

Eventually it could be smart to show which country on the map is which. Maybe use different color for each country (like on Europe map)? I know it would be difficult for Mediterranean Europe, but should be possible for other European regions. What do you think?

Next, I would show where Europe ends (gray out Asiatic part of Russia and Turkey).

Also don't like yellow color on Europe map. It's to bright (may on LCD?).

-- (WT-en) JanSlupski 10:10, 6 Feb 2005 (EST)

I agree grey seems better. That's why I'm experimenting with vaious colours and that's why the Baltics map has grey for "inactive" areas. I'm not sure about more colours on a single map though. (WT-en) Wojsyl 10:46, 6 Feb 2005 (EST)
Please see my try of coloring/list design of Mediterranean Europe at User:(WT-en) JanSlupski/Projects/Europe. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 11:39, 6 Feb 2005 (EST)


Bulgaria and reorganization.

With all do respect here, this map uses a quite wrongful division of Europe. First thing that comes to my mind - Bulgaria is not in Eastern Europe in the sence you present here. East and West are not what they used to be. East used to mean communist, and West democratic. Even Greece was labled Western Europe under that criteria. But it's time to categorize Europe within cultural and historical limits. If you follow the old criteria then you should put Serbia, Macedonia and all the other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe too. Historically, culturally and geographically Bulgaria is in Southeastern Europe a.k.a. the Balkans. Serbia and Macedonia don't even have a coastline, they are landlocked!!! Not to mention the Med sea. Bulgaria had Med sea coastline to the south, before it lost it to Greece in WWI. Now the Med is only 30 km away from the south border with Greece. Second of all, I think the whole map needs to be reorganized. You can not group East and West Med together! They are very different. We need a Balkans or Southeast Europe category (or east Med if you will). Then you also need to put a Baltics cetegory - also different from Eastern Europe in a sence.

Please read Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:48, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

I read it so what? You proposed it...but it makes no sence. Bulgaria has very little in common with the East European states. Geographically it is in South Europe. Med sea is like 30 km way from the south border. Used to have Med sea coast till WW1. South Bulgaria has Med climate. Culturally and traditionaly a South Europen state. Part of the Ottoman Empire and so on...name something in favor of placing it as E Europ.

If you drew a line down the middle of Europe, Bulgaria would be in the East. Bulgaria is a former communist country and shares economic, political, linguistic and historical ties with the other Eastern European countries.
If we were doing a travel guide for the 1890s, of course, we'd include Bulgaria in Mediterranean Europe. If we were going to work on some other imaginary travel guides, we could put Bulgaria on Neptune or in Mordor. But we're not doing imaginary what-if travel guides, and we're not here to rewrite history. Travelers are going to be looking for Bulgaria in Eastern Europe, and it should be there when they look. --(WT-en) Evan 15:39, 27 February 2006 (EST)
My friend I want you to tell me base on what do you group the countries here? Serbia and Macedonia have no Med coast and have the same culture and traditions and virtually the same language - Bulgarian and Macedonia are almost the same. Still SR and MK are put into the Med Europe. Following your logic, if we were to prepare a travel guide before 1991, they would be put in Med as part of Yugoslavia. It really makes no sence. I believe that the whole grouping is wrong. There should be a seperate Groups for Balkans and probably Baltics too. Med and East Europe are too broad entities.

History, tradition and culture should play the major role in grouping the states. Grouping a southern country like Bulgaria with a nothern country like Estonia is deceiving: far away, nothing in common, diff climate, tradition and culture. Oh yea they share the same time zone...but so do Egypt and South Africa...lets put them in E Europe too!

Maybe thats why the balkan became such a mess; because it is part of everything and yet of nothing - there are hungarians in Hungary, in Serbia and in Romania. Are you going to 'fix' this?. Boundary work is a sociological expertise, and I wish everyone with an opinion good luck (and good night:) 145.99.202.90 16:15, 27 February 2006 (EST)

Western Europe ?

France is not part of a so-called "western Europe" regions together with the UK and Netherlands. See the definition of western Europe in Wikipedia, it includes all the countries of western Europe. France doesn't share much with the UK or Netherlands on geographical points, and even less on cultural, linguistic, political system, religion or climate. can look the discussion in wikipedia about southern Europe and Western Europe. —The preceding comment was added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs) 9 October 2006

Please understand that regions created for use in a travel guide are often much different than regions created for political purposes, since they each have very different goals; thus the discussion at Wikipedia may not be relevant. It could be argued that France straddles several European regions, but for the purposes of organization we need to choose one, and the current breakdown of European regions has been created based on the consensus reached through discussion (see above). Any changes should only be made if a new consensus is reached. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:01, 9 October 2006 (EDT)
Agreed. The definitions of continental sections are arbitrary at best and of only very minor use to the traveler. --(WT-en) Evan 11:44, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

Ok, I may agree that it should be put arbitrary in one region. But I tend to think that linking France with UK+Netherlands is far to be the most appropriate grouping, especially when speaking about tourism. The "western Europe" group made of UK+France+Benelux is only an old-fashionned geo-political grouping, which has very few reason to be on a purely touristic point of view. Except for Paris, the majority of the tourism of France concerns the mediterranean regions, Côte d'Azur, Provence, Corsica, and also south-west, where millions of north-European come in summer for the beaches and the mediterranean way of live, as they would do in Spain or Italy. I don't see any reason to exclude France from the mediterranean countries, while it is ones of the most touristic places of the mediterranean are precisely situated in France. On the other way, Serbia, which has no coast on the med, and which is not a touristic destination of southern Europe has absolutly nothing to do in that category. We can keep France in the arbitrary of "western Europe", since it can be relevant for the celtic-influenced Atlantic region of Britanny. But to limit whole France in that category is just a deep misconception of what is mainly France in a touristic point of view. France canno't not being cited in the mediterranean countries.

Thank you for your comprehension, —The preceding comment was added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs) 9 October 2006

I don't quite like the Mediterranean Europe division and pretty much agree with you about Serbia. I wouldn't say, however, that French tourism (business and leisure) concentrates mostly on its southern coast. Paris is the most visited city on earth, and I don't think people go there for the beaches. Anyway, I don't believe it's really a problem (except for breadcrumb navigation purposes, maybe) to have one country featured in two different regions. Turkey, for instance is on two continents, and nobody seems to be unhappy about that. --(WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 16:56, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

"I wouldn't say, however, that French tourism (business and leisure) concentrates mostly on its southern coast."... I personally live there, I can tell you that it is the case. In summer all the people I cross in my own city are north European tourists. A lot of the neighbouring houses are owned by Dutch, German or English people who come here for our climate. If France was in the same region of Europe than England and Netherlands, do you really think that so much people would move to a place that would be similar to their country? Of course not, for them, they were clearly looking for an "exotic" mediterranean place, very different from their own country, not even speaking of language, culture and mentalities. Excepted Paris, the north of France is mush less turistic than the south. The south concentrate the first touristic historic beaches places of southern Europe (+the beaches of south-west), the oldest constructions of France and the Alps and pyrenees which are the biggest winter sport domain of Europe. Thousands of Dutch, English, Belgians and other north Europeans come to ski in the south of France. Anyway, since nobody is supposed to be unhappy with integrating France in the mediterranean group, I'll add it once again and will hope it will not be removed once again. I'll open to discussion some modifications to the map:

Since this issue has already been hashed out at length among contributors, please ensure that you get some support and consensus for this change before making it. If you wish to upload sample maps to point at as part of the discussion process, by all means please do since it can only help clarify stuff. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:05, 9 October 2006 (EDT)
Labeling Serbia as part of 'Mediterranean' made more sense when it was together with Montenegro and still had a coastline. I'm tempted to suggest renaming "Mediterranean Europe" as "Southern Europe", but keeping this list of countries intact — which also means keeping France out of this grouping. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:14, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

What is basically you problem with grouping France within this group ? Could you prouve us that the French riviera, Corsica, the pyrenees, languedoc-roussillon, Landes, aquitains, basque country, etc. are not major touristic regions of southern Europe ? and why not accepting that ? The "western Europe" group as used here is completly imaginary and doesn't represent any reality on geographic, cultural, linguistic, economic, climatic or touristic criteriums. In all those points france have more common points with Italy and Spain than with Netherlands !

That's not the question. The problem is, each country has to be in one (1) main region, so the question is, "Is France more Western than Southern Europe?" The answer is, fairly obviously if you ask me, "yes". (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:18, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

This is a personal opinion, could you provide arguments? what makes France more similar to UK and than to Italy ? And what does it mean to be "western European". If it means being part a a region that would include only the UK and the Benelux it is obvious that France has nothing to see in that group; and it is clear that including France in that group would mean that this concept has absolutly no meaning and no unity. What is your definition of the conception of western Europe limited to UK+BENELUX+FRANCE ? I don't understand what it could mean ? How could you say that France is more "western" than "southern" since this concept of western has no criterium to define it ? What would define geographically, culturally, linguistically, touristically, economically or politically this restricted concept of "western Europe" ?? In this way of using "western Europe" what I don't understand is the opposition you make between "southern" and "western". Being western has never been a problem to be also southern or northern. UK for exemple is clearly at once part of northern Europe and western Europe. Spain is obviously as much western as southern. etc. Another exemple: Boston is obviously part od eastern USA. It doesn't mans that it is not also obviously a city of northern United States. LA is at the same time a city of southern USA and part of western United states in the same time...

Go look at Wikipedia. France (all of it) is definitely in Western Europe; but only southern France is commonly (not always) included in Southern Europe.

Only?! do you realise that you speak of the half of the country who count 60 million people! Do you think a guide can ignore the whole half of France as if France was not at all present in southern Europe ! What does it mean that France is culturally of western European culture ? and what makes Spain not of Western European culture to your eyes ?

I'm not going to oppose a pointer from "Southern Europe" (or Mediterranean Europe) to France (although given the mess to the east even this is opening a can of worms...), but for the isIn hierarchy and the map shading, France is west. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:51, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

I completly agree that France is west, Of course, but west in the real meaning, the one that include also Spain and Portugal! By wikipedia, UK is considered north European, why does it not esclude it to western Europe ? This current classification is too much confusing and groups together countries taht are too much different to be included into the same label. After having read all the old discussions and unless there are some good reasons outside laziness to keep these classification I'll propose another grouping :

- Central Europe : Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Czeck Republic, Slovaquia, Poland, maybe Slovenia.

- Northern Europe (or Scandinavia+Finland) : Sweden, Norway, Finland, and also Denmark due to cultural closeness. Maybe also Iceland for cultural reasons.

- North Western Europe : UK, Benelux, Ireland, and maybe iceland for geographic reasons.

- South Western Europe : Italy, Spain, Portugal (I would personally include France in that category, for clear cultural reasons, and because of the central position of this country in the middle of the mediterranean arch, but to avoid the allergic reaction of those who think that France is a copy and the UK and netherlands and can't stand the idea that France is a latin and mediterranean country I agree to create a own category for France. So I hope we could find a compromise: it would be not lump with the other latin countries of south Europe (Italy, Portugal and Spain), but also not with the northern countries of UK and Netherlands.

- Central Western Europe : France, Monaco, Andorre.

- Eastern Europe : Ukraine, Bielorussia, Russia

- South Eastern Europe (Balkans) : Greece, Ex-Yougoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania


[[image:Europe_3.jpg]]

This seems to be more realistic in terms of geographical closeness and cultural similarities. The former category of "southern Europe" that included countries such as Portugal and Albania, which don't share much together and are far away geographically is better under a division in south-west Europe (the unity with latin languages) and south-east (the region universally know as Balkans). I think we could keep the "mediterranean group", and use it as a specific additional group (and why not a "baltic group" or Alpine"). It would be thematic. It is logical since it correspond to a specific kind of journeys (cruises around mediterranean from one point to another is a reality - and France is not excluded from these cruises!). The Alpine region may be logical for who is searching a winter sport activity: Italy, France, Switzerland, Austria, etc. The Baltic is also relevant for cruises, the region could include Poland, Germany, The Baltic states, Finland, Sweden.

There are so many problems with this that I'm not sure where to start...
  1. Regions should contain 5-9 countries (see Project:Geographical hierarchy).
  2. You're making up your own terms here. I'm a European and have lived and travelled in various parts of Europe for half my life, but I have no idea what "Central Western Europe" is supposed to be.
  3. Are you seriously saying that Belgium has more cultural similarity to Ireland or Iceland than to France? (Tip: French is an official language there.)
Start with those. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:07, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

I'll take your comments : - Iceland. As I said I think it could be grouped with scandinavia, for obvious cultural similarities, even if Iceland could be geographically in North-western Europe. I clearly agree to include it in Northern Europe.. - Belgium, It is an ambigous country, with a double culture. Its francophone part has obviously strong links with France. But since it should be placed in one category, to be with Netherlands is a better choice, because it is usually refferd to be part of a same sub-regions call benelux. Added to this, Belgium is nowadays with a Flemish majority (60%), and its land have been under the sames influences than Netherlands for a long time. Not forget the geographical position; Belgium's center of gravity is clearly in the north of western Europe, closer to netherlands than to France, at close latitudes to the UK. The climatic similarities, traditions (beer), and architecture makes it more easily associate with Netherlands than France. Said that Belgium is clearly a discutable case. Switzerland is aslo in an ambiguous situation. Its position in central Europe is not clear due to the French and Italian parts of it. But since the majority of the country is german speaking, as a whole it can be associated easily with Austria and Germany. Its geographical position is also logical for this grouping. - Concerning the number of countries in each group; I personally would prefer to group France with Spain and Italy, because of the language, the mediterranean coast and the central position in the middle of the "latin arch". I just had so hard reactions when evoquing the idea of associating France with Italy or Spain (I still don't know why?), that I tried to find a compromise. For me there is no doubt that France is culturally a south western European country, even if it lies a bit more north than Italy (center of gravity at about 46°, while Italy is 43°, the difference is not so huge, especially when we compare it with the position of the UK or Benelux whose center of gravity lies clearly between 52 and 54°)

To me the best grouping would be this : But I'm sure some of you won't like to see France associated with Spain or Italy:

Those categories seems good to me, the association is made by area of cultural influence and also taking acount of geography. just Belgium and Switzerland are more ambigous because in area of double (or triple) influences. - central Europe: German speaking countries+ the wisegrad group which have been historically in the German-speaking area of influence. - Northern Europe: the area of Scandinavian cultural influence - North-Western Europe: the area of English and Dutch influences. - South-Western Europe: the area of Latin influence. - South-Eastern Europe: the balkans, historically a melting pot and influences by Greek, Turk and slavic influences. - Eastern Europe : The area under Russian influence.

  • I'd say this is the best grouping anyone has suggested. France, Italy, Spain & Portugal are a logical grouping, with related languages, religion, culture. The only quibble I might have is whether the Baltic states go in Northern or Eastern Europe. (WT-en) Pashley 00:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Inaccurate groups

(moved from Talk:Europe by (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:18, 10 October 2006 (EDT))

The whole way the groups are made in this article is wrong. The first error is to use the old pre WW2 geopolitical concept of "western Europe" to group together countries such as UK and Netherlands with France, who don't share not much more than having being democraties in the first half of the 20th century. France obviously share much more culturally with the other south-western European countries such as Spain and Italy, especially for its southern half. Due to the latin language, catholic heritage and of course its coastline on the mediterranean. UK and Netherlands on their side have germanic languages, important protestant influences a geographical position in the northern half of Europe and coastlines on the north sea. It is clear that netherlands are much more similar to Germany (with who they have their longest border), than with France !! (with who they don't even have a common border). The same way for UK, wich doesn't share any border with France. From a French point of view, being grouped in this limited "western Europe" concept has no meaning and seems completly arbitrary, since it is not justificated by geography, by language, by climate, by political system, or any other criterium.

This definition is outdated and inacurate, it should be removed. the definition of western Europe of Wikipedia is more accurate, it includes all western Europe and does not prevent the belonging to other groups such as northern or southern.

I tend to think that there are in reality 4 cardinal groupings defined by geography but also culture: north-west (Scandinavia, UK, Germany, Netherlands), south-west (Italy, Spain, Portugal France(with reserves for its northern part on a pure geographical way)), north-east (Poland, Russia, Baltic states, etc), south-east (balkanic states). and one overlaping region, central Europe, witch can include countries that can also be integrated in other groups (Germany, poland,Autria, Hungary, etc.)

I invite you to see the discussion in the article about southern Europe in wikipedia.

There already has been much discussion about this at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Have you seen it? Every division is arbitrary to some extent so the point here as I understand it is to provide one that is comprehensible for travellers previously unfamiliar with Europe. I'm afraid that allowing countries to appear in more than one group would only cause confusion. And if we allow only one group per country, I think France is classified properly here -- although the whole division could be improved (eg. Portugal is hardly Mediterranean).

"I think France is classified properly here"... Do you really think that Corsica, Provence, Côte d'Azur, Basque country, Aquitaine, Languedoc, etc. fit better with England, Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands better than with Spain or Italy ??! I'm sorry, but for who is unfamiliar with Europe this kind of classification will give him a wrong image the reality of the country. If you are afraid to put France in more than one category, It would be possible to cancel the current "western Europe" category, and using instead a north-west Europe, and south-west Europe categories. Which would be much more in relation with the cultural and geographical realities than the current groups. (especially because being western is very much more inclusive and doesn't exclude to be northern or southern European. For instance Spain, Itamy and portugal are always considered to be paret of western Europe as much as France.)

Please ensure that you gain some consensus on this issue before making any changes since the current state of division is the result of a significant amount of discussion and should therefore not be altered by a single individual. For example, while I would concur that the current Med region sucks, I disagree with removing France from Western Europe. When I think France, I think Paris. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:01, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

" When I think France, I think Paris. " I'm sorry to be so direct, but you have a very narrow-minded image of France-which leads you to misunderstand the reality of this country. This common stereotype of France limited to Paris is especially the reason why I think that France should be included in the mediterranean group. You canno't just ignore the main part of the country. 95% of french territory is situated south of Paris. 7 of the 10 biggest French cities are situated in the southern half, and 4 of them are directly on the mediterranean sea. One of them, Marseille, is the french second city and the biggest port of southern Europe. Another, Nice, is the center of the most well known touristic region of southern Europe; Corsica is one of the 5 great mediterranean islands, etc... It is just impossible to ignore this reality. More than this, as a whole, French culture is latin-based, and have its roots in the mediterranean area, its oldest cities there, etc. Even if the north of France has more "celtic" and "germanic" influence, it is very inapropriate to group it with countries of northern European culture such as the Netherlands and UK. Of course France is part of western Europe, but part of the large concept of western Europe, which includes of course also Italy, Spain or Germany, which are countries with France has more common points than UK and Netherlands. The concept of "western Europe" as it is used here is a old-fashionned concept from WWI/WWII times, used as a geopolitical (the democraties at that time) one which has lost its meaning nowadays: it is not a geographical region, has not a common climate, not the same linguistic group (romance/germanic), not the same religion (actholic/protestant), not the same kind of foods (wine/beer), etc. I'll make a new map which would use the "western Europe" in its modern international understanding, to open it to discussion. For the moment I think we can keep the current one, keeping France in the restricted "western Europe" group, but also including France in the list of the mediterranean countries in the same time canno't be avoided.


"For example, while I would concur that the current Med region sucks" I don't agree. The mediterranean is a good way to speak of countries, especially when speaking of tourism. As the introduction says it the mediterranean countries share common characteristics such as kind of food, landscapes and way of life. That's what the English and Dutch people who take their retirement to France are looking for. Touristically, the mediterranean countries share being the playgrounds of all Europe in summertime : Balearic islands, Costa del sol, Cote d'Azur, Corsica, etc. and also famous for old cities's urban tourism. France share those touristic characteristics with Italy and Spain.

" I disagree with removing France from Western Europe. When I think France, I think Paris" Yes, Paris is in western Europe, but Bordeaux is even more western. Not even speaking of Madrid, Sevilla or Lisbon... it is difficult to be more western...

"When I think France, I think Paris" If we apply this kind of thinking to other countries you should change other categories; Ex: "If I think Germany, I think Berlin", in this case Germany should'nt be considered as central European, geographically Berlin is clearly not in the central European area (which is more around Autria), but is much more in the Baltic sea area.

Eastern Europe Map

The current map for the Eastern Europe page does not respect what these maps here say, except for one. The current map is this:

I strongly suggest someone changes it to one of the maps here, I find the first one to be best honestly, but in any case I believe this definition of Eastern Europe is not accurate.

Andorran Pride!

The great nation of Andorra must never be confused with the lesser cultures of the Mediterranean!!! --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Eastern Europe subdivisions

On a more serious note, If we are going to have sub regions for Eastern Europe (and we should according to the 7±2 rule), we would best come up with two coherent subregions spanning all the countries in the region. The current Baltic + "Russia and the Caucasus" schematic leaves out five countries and the second region is an awkward "this and that" type, which indicates that it's more of a Frankenstein than a coherent region. The best organizing scheme I have come up with is a Northeastern Europe region, comprised of Belarus, the Baltic States, and Russia, and a Black Sea region including Ukraine, the Caucasus, Romania, and Bulgaria. That would break this region into 5 and 7 respectively.

Pros: Both regions are very coherent culturally and geographically.

  • Northeastern Europe is straightforward.
  • The Black Sea as a culturally coherent region is gaining a lot of academic traction (see Charles King's book).
  • Moreover, Romanians and Bulgarians affronted by the "Eastern Europe" designation might find solace in their additional "Black Sea region" status.

Cons:

  • Russia is technically in both regions
    • but Russia's center is around Moscow and St Petersburg, both lying in Northeastern Europe.
  • Armenia and Azerbaijan are not on the Black Sea.
    • but Armenia is a culturally and historically Black Sea country, only deprived of its coastline in the past 100 years.
    • but while Azerbaijan does not lie on the Black Sea, the Caucasus most certainly does, and Azerbaijan will remain under that direct subregion (i.e., breadcrumb = Eastern Europe : Black Sea Region : Caucasus : Azerbaijan)
  • Turkey is a very important part of the Black Sea region

I would really like to hear thoughts on this, but if no one takes interest, I'll just assume that's license to Plunge ahead. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The Northeast/Black-Sea division seems like a reasonable one. I'd like to toss one other thought into the ring, however: Dividing up the U.S., there were a few states that were simply left out of any regions, because they were too large, diverse, or unique. Russia arguably fits that description, and could be treated as its own region of Europe. For example, would it make sense to have A) Russia, B) the Caucasus, and C) Eastern Europe (i.e. Estonia thru Bulgaria)? If not, and no other good solutions come of omitting Russia, let's go with the Northeast/Black-Sea split. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I initially was going for just two regions becasuse of the 7±2 rule, but if that rule is at it seems relaxed at the macro level, I would prefer your schematic. Another possibility would be to group Russia with its very closely related neighbors Belarus and Ukraine (other travel guides have used this grouping). Then we would have nice coherent regions for the Baltic States and the Caucasus, with a sort of leftover category (Southeastern Europe?) for Romania and Bulgaria. The advantage of this schematic is that it would preserve the Baltic grouping, which I think is worthwhile. But I'm not sure yet which of these proposals I would prefer; I'd like to hear more thoughts. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
What about making an Eastern Europe group with Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the Caucusus? The Baltic states could placed at Northern Europe and the Balkan states (Romania and Bulgaria) could be grouped in Southeastern Europe. For a traveller, it sounds more logical to get these western states out of the Russia group.
I like that suggestion. At the next level, Southeastern Europe then breaks down to Agean (Greece, Turkey, Cyprus) and Balkan. (WT-en) Pashley

Spain and Portugal ?

(copied from Talk:Western Europe)

Spain and Portugal not included ?? Those countries are included among the mediterranean countries only. Portugal is not technically a mediterranean country, and Spain had as much coast on the Atlantic ocean than on the mediterranean. If I look for informations about Porto, Santiago de compostella, , Santander or the Basque country, i find it strange to be obliged to look in the mediterranean sub-category. especially concerning Portugal.

Both countries are situated more western than France, (which in included in western Europe only).

I have difficulties to understand the logics of the classifications. "western Europe" is understood by everybody as a much wider group, which includes countries from Portugal to Norway. the selection made seems really arbitrary. —The preceding comment was added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

Although yes this has already been discussed into the ground, I don't think we have come up with very good solutions to our Europe subdivisions because we have been approaching regions as a fairly arbitrary content organization tool. I think that the unsurprising result of not taking our regions seriously enough is that they look a bit sloppy and unprofessional. Someone who goes to a Western Europe article expects certain things because the term "Western Europe" means something (very amorphous and political) outside of this site. It is a loaded term and not a good title for this region, which would be better served by a move to "Northwestern Europe."
By the way, if you are reading this, I would really appreciate a comment above, on "Eastern Europe subdivisions." Thanks! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I think "northwestern Europe" would be a good term for the region, at condition that, of course, France would be excluded from it. England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg fit well in my opinion in that group. concerning eastern Europe, I think it could include all Balkan region (including Romania) - maybe in a sub-group "southeastern Europe".

See also Talk:Mediterranean Europe; that region now has 20 countries, which is kind of ridiculous. I've proposed "Southeastern Europe" to handle everything east of Slovenia, but the problem is coming up with some sort of sensible name to handle Italy, Spain and France... (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:52, 20 February 2008 (EST)

The UK, Ireland and the Baltics to North Europe

The present Europe map is very similar to the CIA map, and not to the more internationally accepted UN subregion map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Location-Europe-UNsubregions.png From a geographical, political and economical point of view I believe therefore the UK, Ireland and the Baltics should be moved to North Europe. Poland should therefore also be moved to East Europe (as a Slavic country). (WT-en) Jakro64 16:22, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I too would suggest moving the Baltic countries Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania into Northern Europe, while I understand this might be a bit controversial, today both politically, culturally and economically they are much closer linked with Scandinavia than the CIS countries. And due to the Visa restrictions of Russia - Sweden and Finland are much more common entry/exit points than Russia is. And my experience from traveling there, is that they tend to identify themselves as a Nordic country as well. Regarding UK and Ireland I have my doubts - for a travelers perspective i don't think they group together very well.

(WT-en) Sertmann 09:34, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Below moved from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2

Hi, I see your Europe's hierarchy page, but to me, and most other geographers that seem really naive. Latvia is lawfully and officially a part of Northern Europe and is been so since her independence proclamation; saying otherwise means you don't know much about its history. I would love you to read these facts which show just a little bit of the history, but there, of course, is much more than that: Before the Soviet occupation, Latvia had no bounds with Russia or any other eastern european country, but as early as 5th century Latvia has strong bounds with Sweden (read Curonians), being an important part of the Viking era. Since that time and being under Swedish rule for more than hundred years, latvians, especially courlanders are significantly influenced by Swedes. The strong bounds between south-eastern part of Sweden and especially, Gotland, and denmark died out only after the russian occupation. Ruhnu is geographically a Latvian island, oficially- Estonian, this island has been for centuries populated by pure Swedes, in fact, they had to flee to Sweden when the Soviets came in in 1941 and later 1944. So, clear Swedish island, with a significant, unique Swedish culture for centuries now..a part of Eastern europe? How comes? This is not the only island, of course. The rights for the land have been granted back to Swedish families. 2. Latvia was a part of the Hanseatic League. It was a strong, significant alliance upon which most of Latvia's cities and culture are even built, it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the East as it was strongly and an alliance of only the Northern Europe. 3. Latvia's TRUE indigenous people- livonians are hundred percent, full blooded finno-ugric, having a finno-ugric language and sharing extreme cultural similarities with Finns. Eastern european you say? 4. Latvia and Estonia share significant cultural similiarities with the rest of the Northern countries. You simply have to visit one of those countries and I'm sure, you won't be willing to call it Eastern europe. 5. Anthropoligacally, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania have nothing to do, whatsoever, with none of the Eastern countries. You should read more on this matter. Latvians, Estonians and Finns have split from the same branch, with Latvians picking up different language branch but having strong bonds with Estonians still to this day.

I ask you to do something in this matter, even the big wikipedia have got things right, and so do most of other encyclopedias, it would be wrong to have some self-made (and wrong made!) "hierarchy" on quite an important page, when Baltic countries are officially (and I repeat this- officially) a lawful part of the Northern europe. I'd love to see the truth on this page, one day. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) RonDivine‎ (talk • contribs)

Since this comment was originally addressed to me: I don't have any strong opinions on the matter, aside from making sure that any changes to the European regional hierarchy are discussed first and some consensus is reached to make changes. It took an extraordinarily long time to come up with a hierarchy on which people agreed (see discussions above and elsewhere), so it cannot be changed without similar agreement. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 03:48, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Note that User:(WT-en) RonDivine uploaded the region map (to the right) showing a proposed breakdown. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 04:22, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not entirely opposed to changing this order, but it's a very controversial and weighty change. We should leave this discussion in place for a good month before moving forward. When/if we do, it will be necessary to change all relevant breadcrumbs. Also, I don't like the solid black lines dividing countries on that map — using the same border line for envisioned continental differences within countries as the border line for country borders looks wrong. Gradients would work, but we honestly don't need to show that level of detail, as the continental section maps are mostly just for illustrating our hierarchical navigation. I agree with the above opinion that including the UK/Ireland in Northern Europe with the Scandinavian and Baltic countries would not make sense; I think we should really ditch the Western Europe designation (since that's mostly a political distinction), and replace it with Northwestern Europe. Lastly, Ron, ditch the goofy pomposity — that's not a good way to build consensus. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree that the Baltics sit better in Northern Europe, but I think that the UK & Ireland would be better sitting in the proposed North West Europe region. -- (WT-en) DanielC 15:39, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't mind adding the Baltics to Northern Europe, but I think UK/Ireland should definitely stay in the current Western Europe block — they have next to nothing in common with the Nordic countries. Poland should also stay in Central Europe. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:10, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe we should add Estonia and Latvia (which are more northerly, mostly Protestant like Scandinavia + linguistic link to Finland etc) to Northern Europe, and Lithuania, which has more in common with Poland than, say Sweden, to Central Europe. The only disadvantage of such an arrangement, as far as I can think of, is that we will no longer be able to have a common Baltic states grouping. --(WT-en) Vidimian 23:21, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
You're right that Lithuania is culturally more aligned with Poland than with the other baltic states. However, I still see a disadvantage for travellers by splitting these countries up. I think many travellers would combine a trip through all of these Baltic countries. It's more logical to combine a trip to Latvia and Lithuania, than through Lithuania and Poland. (Most would just visit Poland alone). And it can also be argued that the baltic states do have a lot of features in common (language, history) 77.250.22.126 07:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Southeastern Europe

How come there is no group for the Balkans/Southeastern Europe? This would make more sense than making a random split-up of the former Yugoslavian countries through Eastern and Mediterranean Europe. I think Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, (Kosovo), Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria could be added to this subgroup. Slovenia and Greece probably better fit in the groups where they're located now. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:43, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I made an image to show what I'm talking about:
(WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Maps sure are useful. I don't know if we'll ever reach a new consensus to replace the old, since it's hard to agree on these things, but here's my take on your proposal:

  1. Kaliningrad is in E Europe, but is west of the Baltics--that seems odd. I think the desire to remove the Baltics from Eastern Europe has much less to do with travel and a lot more to do with politics.
  2. Mediterranean Europe now excludes countries for which Mediterranean resorts comprise nearly all tourism (like Croatia).
  3. The French Riviera is excluded from Mediterranean Europe. (I realize it is in the current version too—I'm no fan of the hierarchy as we have it either.)
  4. Moldova is separated from Romania, but the countries are similar enough where some people would like to see them amalgamated.
  5. Southeastern Europe seems incompatible with a hierarchy including "Mediterranean Europe"—Turkey and Greece are very clearly in Southeastern Europe.

On a different note, we should probably not discuss individual aspects of proposals under different sections; we should have one section for each new complete proposal. Otherwise this discussion will probably go nowhere. I'll toss together another proposal myself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

2 proposals

I think the reason this topic keeps getting new proposals is because the original hierarchy is bad. I realize it took a lot of effort to build a rough consensus for the original hierarchy, but I feel as though people got frustrated with how hard it was, and settled for something that doesn't really work. Mediterranean Europe excludes France. Western Europe excludes the westernmost countries of Europe. Eastern Europe includes Serbia, but not Bosnia (which is in the Mediterranean despite not having a coast!). I think we can do better.

In clearing my throat I'd also like to note that it is not hard to change this—it should take all of 1/2 hour total to fix the breadcrumbs. The hard part is simply agreeing on a new proposal.

Proposal 1

Here is one proposal, which captures broad swathes of countries into a few fairly undisputable regions with directional names (the exception being Scandinavia, which has a universally accepted definition), and is pretty conventional by Wikivoyage standards.

  • Western Europe
  • Central Europe
  • Southeastern Europe
  • Eastern Europe
  • Scandinavia


Proposal 2

I like this second proposal better. It is more fine grained and moves distinctive regions to the top-level, as well as a few countries which simply do not fit into any good categories with other countries.

  • The British Isles
  • France and the Benelux
  • Central Europe
  • Italy
  • The Iberian Peninsula
  • Former Yugoslavia (this section of the world is notoriously difficult to sort out...)
  • Southeastern Europe (united pretty clearly by Greek and Ottoman history. Maybe Former Yugoslavia should be merged here?)
  • Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (this is a standard grouping in travel guides)
  • The Baltic States
  • The Caucasus
  • Scandinavia

The second proposal more closely resembles what we did for another complex regional division, the USA, which I think we did quite well. It doesn't try to force countries into regions that don't fit, and keeps most all the most distinctive regions right at the top level. This should help eliminate wishy-washy region articles for places like "Western Europe," which has too many connotations of different country groupings to allow for a tight enjoyable (and writable) article like the British Isles or the Iberian Peninsula.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Hopefully no jaded cantankerous dead-ender comments about how we've already got a (shoddy) consensus and don't feel like changing it—no one's asking you to do the work! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I really really like suggestion number 2, excellent work Peter! I'll support it avidly! and be glad to help sort out breadcrumbs etc. And if the US justifies 13 regions, Europe certainly merits 11, considering that unlike the case in the States, these regions have different languages, cultures, history and what not.
One thing of note (being Scandinavian myself) is that Scandinavia does not have an universally accepted definition, but two. The correct actually only encompasses Denmark, Norway and Sweden, while Iceland and Finland is included in the term 'The Nordic countries'. While I have no raving objections (I actually sort of prefer it) to calling it Scandinavia, i just thought I'd mention it.
/edit - oh and I'd support moving Fmr. Yugoslavia to Southeastern Europe (WT-en) Sertmann 16:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd support proposal 2 ... but would suggest moving Slovenia to Central Europe, and the rest of former Yugoslavia to Southeastern Europe. Slovenia has much in common with its Alpine neighbour Austria and is already in the Eurozone.(WT-en) Jnich99 07:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I guess that sort of makes since, as it's different from the rest since it's a EU member state, and more important for a travel site, it's a Schengen member. (WT-en) Sertmann 15:28, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
The second proposal is awesome work. It makes the regions smaller and therefore they make more sense. The only change I'd make is to switch Slovenia to Central Europe and place former-Yugoslavia in Southeastern Europe. And "Scandinavia" should be "Nordic countries", as Finland (and even Iceland) are not part of Scandinavia. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
The biggest problem is the Mediterranean: the region is by far too diverse and has 20 countries in it (way more than the maximum of nine). I think we should address this problem by separating the region in the three units mentioned before: Iberian Peninsula, Italy and Southeastern Europe. I think this is a great measure. However, according to textbook, Southeastern Europe would be too large. If we want to split it up, it could be done this way:

Western Balkans: Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania Southeastern Europe: Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria

But I think the "big" Southeastern Europe would already be a big improvement.
(WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not concerned about Southeastern Europe going over the 9 per list requirement. I can't actually find the original discussion where we talked about this, but for regions we treat the limit of 9 rule as more of a guideline than a rule. This makes sense because it can sometimes be impossible to follow. For New York (state), for example, we kept the organization of counties to 9 regions, but that in some cases leaves more than 9 counties per region—mathematically it's not feasible to get around that problem, unless we do something that screws up the otherwise solid travel hierarchy. The American South is another great example of a region of 11 subregions that really doesn't merit being broken up. And we're already over 9 on the top-level regions here anyway—if we broke up Southeastern Europe, that would bring us way over the limit on these divisions.
I agree with moving Slovenia to Central Europe, since the country/former region has always had little in common with the rest of former Yugoslavia, except for their shared history over part of the 20th century. I would rather not rename Scandinavia the Nordic Countries. There are variations in usage, but I'm confident that the most common English-language usage includes the rest of the Nordic Countries. We try to avoid splitting hairs to much in our travel guides, and to simply go for most common usage.
In any rate, I think we've come up with a good hierarchy here, which to my delight gets rid of the very problematic Mediterranean Europe division. Provided there are no arguments raised in objection over the next two weeks, I say we go forward and implement this new hierarchy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:50, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I too like proposal 2. But there is a small problem. Because ‘Italy’ is considered a region on its own, we will have to list San Marino and Vatican City under it, so the isin tags for both countries will show up like this: Europe : Italy : San Marino. Which is not very bad from travellers’ point of view, as next to no one visit San Marino or Vatican City alone. But in the name of political correctness, I think we should somehow distinguish these two sovereign entities from, for example Naples or Venice, which ‘really’ are in Italy. So the region ‘Italy’ should be renamed something else. Italian Peninsula? Apenninia? The Boot? I don’t know… And what is more, none of these solve the problem of Malta, which is usually a destination on its own (not visited together with Italy). Maybe we should name the region ‘Italy, San Marino, Vatican City, and Malta’, but that’s too long. ‘Italy and its vicinity’? But it’s vague and it kinda sounds like as it should also include Corsica or even Switzerland. Or maybe we should split proposed ‘France and the Benelux’ region into a Benelux on its own, and merge France, Iberia, and Italy (with Vatican City, San Marino, and Malta) into a ‘Western Mediterranean’ or whatever name it gets. I’m not personally against a ‘France and the Benelux’ region (although I don’t insist on this, I’d prefer to see ‘Benelux’ and ‘France’ as seperate regions on their own, however, but a region named ‘France’ would cause the same problem with ‘Italy’: what shall we do about Monaco?) or to see ‘Iberia’ as a region on its own, I’m just looking for a container with a meaningful name to include Italy, VA, SM, and Malta.
What about a pseudo-region called ‘European microstates’ by the way? --(WT-en) Vidimian 09:33, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
I have thought for a second and I now realize that while the designation 'Southeastern Europe' works OK for Turkish Marmara Region or Greek Macedonia, it doesn't do that well in Crete, Mediterranean Turkey or Cyprus. Merging Moldova and Cyprus into one region is like, say merging Maine and Florida into one region.
So I say, what do you think about splitting 'Southeastern Europe' into two: A)'Balkans' (Ex-Yugoslavia except Slovenia, Albania, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria) and B)'Eastern Mediterranean' (Greece, Turkey, Cyprus). I know both names are a little problematic (for example, Moldova is hardly Balkanic, or Croatia is excluded from Eastern Mediterranean despite its long coastline) but I couldn't come up with better names. Maybe these two (Balkans and East Med) can be subregions of top level Southeastern Europe?--(WT-en) Vidimian 09:45, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me to have a Balkans region. It's very distinct, recognizable, and works well as a travel region. I also really like the idea of having a European Micro States region, especially as that solves the problem of Italy as a top-level region.

I agree that Moldova and Cyprus don't go well together, but Cyprus fits obviously with Greece and Turkey, and Romania fits well with Greece and Turkey, and it would be silly to group Moldova apart from Romania. I guess I don't see the problem of including Cyprus in "Southeastern Europe," since it is arguably the Southeasternmost part of Europe. Having an Eastern Mediterranean + Balkans grouping would by necessity leave out Romania, Bulgaria, and Moldova. So I see two options: 1) Balkans + Southeastern Europe, or 2) Southeastern Europe. Neither is perfect; we won't reach perfection. But these two option seem pretty good to me.

Lastly, the Southeastern Europe article is going to be the messiest article in the region. So I do think it would be nice to have good subregions for it, but lets keep that discussion to a future Talk:Southeastern Europe page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:11, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

“Having an Eastern Mediterranean + Balkans grouping would by necessity leave out Romania, Bulgaria, and Moldova.” Why is that? Bulgaria is and has always been considered a Balkan country. In fact, the whole region gets its name from a long mountain range running right through the middle of Bulgaria (Balkan Mountains). Romania is also (quite arguably) another Balkan country, as far as I know it’s always represented in, for example, pan-Balkanic sports competitions. Thus, ‘Balkans’ can only leave out Moldova, but even in Moldova, there is a growing sense of Balkan identity (for example, Moldova is included in ‘Balkan Flexi-Pass’ train pass scheme). And even if the situation isn’t like that, I totally agree that seperating Moldova and Romania into two different regions doesn’t make sense. So by virtue of Romania being a Balkan country, we can simply add Moldova into that group too (like the ‘Black Sea Region’ proposed earlier: “but while Azerbaijan does not lie on the Black Sea, the Caucasus most certainly does, and Azerbaijan will remain under that direct subregion (i.e., breadcrumb = Eastern Europe : Black Sea Region : Caucasus : Azerbaijan)”. Why wouldn’t it be the same for Moldova? We wouldn’t even be speaking about these if those two countries (RO and MD) had been reunited in early 1990s, which was a highly expected thing those times.
oh, I should also note that ‘Ex-Yugoslavia except Slovenia + Albania’ is not Balkans, it’s just Western Balkans, but the uproar they create (and the following headlines) make people think that Balkans region is consisted of only them and nowhere else.--(WT-en) Vidimian 08:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Credit my ignorance then ;) If Bulgaria/Romania/Moldova can fit under the Balkans, then it may well bee useful to create a Balkans region page. But I don't like "Eastern Mediterranean" because the name would indicate countries beyond Europe (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, Israel). The only leftovers would be Greece-Turkey-Cyprus right? They go together nicely as a travel region, but I can't think of a good name. "Agean" would leave out Cyprus, for example. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I’d prefer a proper name but the best I’ve got is ‘Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus’. It shouldn’t be a big problem since we’ll have region names like ‘France and the Benelux’ or ‘Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine’.--(WT-en) Vidimian 09:36, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Here is an updated map and the regions scheme as we have it. If there are no more suggestions/criticisms, lets wait 3 weeks and then implement this new hierarchy.

  Balkans
  Baltic states
  British Isles
  Caucasus
  Central Europe
  France and the Benelux
  Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus
  Iberia
  Italy
  Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus
  Scandinavia

See also European Microstates.

Nice to see, too, that these region pages all already exist! My only lingering doubt is in applying the name Balkans to include Romania and Moldova—only the name, mind you—I do think the groupings are ideal. "Southeastern Europe" is the only other name I can think to apply to this region, but then you have the problem of explaining why Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus have been excluded from that region (the answer being, of course, that it makes sense from a travel perspective to make this division). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:08, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Awesome work :) These regions make a lot more sense for the traveller. Instead of vague terms like 'Eastern Europe', these smaller subregions like Caucasus, Baltic States and Balkans are actually recognizable and logical regions to travel around in. Good work. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 08:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
  • BUMP* This proposal has been out there for a while and consensus seems to have been reached, so just bumping back onto the recent changes page to give anyone else who wants to contribute one more chance to do so. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:11, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Well, that was a big change! Anyway, the new hierarchy is implemented. May it long have acceptance with the Wikivoyage community. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Nice! Could you have a look over at Montenegro, in the words of the current Californian Governor; "It's not werkeing, uu hav to slab it a lidle haarder!" --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)
There's something wrong with Montenegro—I can't get the crumbs to display. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Ah, always nice to know I'm not a complete idiot, tried purging the page, but that doesn't help either. The rest looks great though, the only thing we need is a better map (no offense) and some contributors to add some more content to some of the regions. Great work, and great proposal --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 13:53, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Greece in the new hierarchy

I wasn't aware of this discussion until just now after I saw the Balkan breadcrumb on the Greece page. I think there should have been pointers to it on the relevant country talk pages. I don't think it was at all reasonable to expect contributors like me, who like most contributors work with a small subset of countries, to have known about this discussion which affects the countries I'm interested in but is on a page that I never have any particular reason to check. Having seen the hierarchy change, I want to register my strong objection to including Greece in a Balkan hierarchy. The inclusion of Greece under the Mediterranean Europe area on this site is of long standing; the vast majority of travelers think of Greece as a Mediterranean country; and indeed in the minds of people in most English speaking countries Greece and Italy are the two Mediterranean countries par excellence -- "Greece and Italy" are practically synonymous with "Mediterranean." It should also be noted that changing the Greece page breadcrumb to Balkans means that the breadcrumbs on all Greece pages will lead back to Balkans -- for instance, Crete, Mykonos, and Rhodes would all have breadcrumbs leading back to Balkans, which is clearly misleading and inappropriate, (it's not particularly bad for parts of Northern Greece like Thessaly or Epiros to be "Mediterranean" since most of them have a Mediterranean coast and the few regions of Northern Greece that can really be considered inland are still close to the Mediterranean.) Listing Greece as a Balkan region also obscures the fact that the Greece has, especially from the viewpoint of travelers considering destinations, much more in common with Spain and Italy than it does with Serbia or Bulgaria or Montenegro. I changed the breadcrumb on the Greece page back to Mediterranean before I knew about the hierarchy change, which I wouldn't have done unilaterally if I'd known about the discussion, but I'll leave that change for now and I'll put a pointer from the Greece talk page to here. (WT-en) Sailsetter 18:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Could you propose a change that you would find acceptable? Should there be a separate region for Greece & Italy, and if so what should it be named? Do you have an alternative proposal? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:48, 14 November 2008 (EST)
We are in the process of phasing out that Mediterranean Europe page altogether, for numerous reasons discussed throughout this talk page. We actually don't include Greece in the Balkans region, but I left the breadcrumb to Balkans there, since Greece is unambiguously part of the Balkan Peninsula. It's not appropriate to leave the breadcrumb pointing to Mediterranean Europe (since that article is defunct per the above discussion), but I'm fine with just pointing straight to Europe, as I did for Cyprus and Turkey. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:38, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Having looked through the discussion above I don't find the arguments for eliminating the Mediterranean Europe region persuasive, and I would have argued against the proposal to do so if I'd known about it. As it is, I won't complain about putting Greece under either Europe or Southern Europe. I'll remark in passing though that I don't agree that Greece is unambiguously part of the Balkan peninsula: the fact that half the country's area consists of islands and seas which few people would refer to as "Balkan" (Crete, Rhodes, Santorini, Lesbos, Chios, Mykonos, Kos, etc. etc.) seems to me to introduce some ambiguity. And from a traveler's viewpoint (which is supposed to be Wikivoyage's viewpoint) consider which of these two statements a traveler is likely to make: 1) "I'm taking my vacation in Greece this year because I've always wanted to see the Mediterranean," or 2) "I'm taking my vacation in Greece this year because I've always wanted to see the Balkans." (WT-en) Sailsetter 11:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Well Sailsetter, as I understand the above suggestion, "...because I've always wanted to see the Balkans" is not a necessary argument, because it won't be a part of the Balkans - but a separate region with Turkey and Cyprus, which definitely makes sense for me as a travel region... Now if only we could find a good name. "Aegean countries" would work for me, but I guess someone passionate about Cyprus could object to that.

I think countries being top-level regions should be exceptions (as in the case of Italy), not the rule. At the moment, France, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Ukraine, and Russia are all shown as top-level regions at breadcumbs. So, if no one objects, I'll write some articles on Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus and Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus regions and change isIn tags towards them (rather than directly to Europe) soon.--(WT-en) Vidimian 07:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

And also I'd like to see Monaco and San Marino as parts of European Microstates, not of France and Mediterranean Europe as how it is at the moment--(WT-en) Vidimian 07:47, 18 November 2008 (EST).

Do not change anything until there is clear consensus, please. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
There are already country pages on Greece, etc. Why should there also be region pages? That seems terribly redundant and confusing. (WT-en) Sailsetter 10:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
What is the problem? Greece is not part of "Balkans", it's part of a group with Greece, Turkey and Cyprus (the eastern mediterannean). (WT-en) Globe-trotter 18:02, 19 November 2008 (EST)

IRELAND IS NOT THE"BRITISH ISLES" IT IS A COUNTRY ON IT'S OWN!!!!! —The preceding comment was added by 83.70.237.84 (talk • contribs)

While it's true the Greek isles don't fit well with the Balkan label. The rump of the Greek state absolutely does. From a tourist standpoint, I can see why you don't include Greece in the Balkans, because the overwhelming majority of places tourists will be aren't in the Greek hinterland. As an equivalent example: Russia lies predominately in Asia, but no one is arguing for it to be included as such. —The preceding comment was added by 78.24.49.118 (talk • contribs)

More on European regions

I don't know if this topic is still considered open for discussion, but since my opinion was asked above, here is what I think. To back up to basics, a region hierarchy should reflect what travelers are interested in. This means that regions should be geographically contiguous areas with things very generally in common. Since modern travel, especially in Europe, usually is done by airplane and high speed train, it makes sense for the regions to be fairly large. And since travelers don't care much about strictly following what geographers say, neither should the Wikivoyage regions. In line with these principles, I think the best European region hierarchy would be a broad, simple one of Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. Northern Europe would include Ireland, Iceland, the UK, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland, Southern Europe would include Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and Greece, and Eastern Europe would include Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and all those other little countries around there, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland. (If I've left any countries out, just put them in where they belong.) I'd leave the European bit of Turkey out, attaching it to the rest of Turkey. Personally, I'd put the former Soviet republics other than Russia in a separate region. It seems to me this hierarchy would best reflect the way travelers actually think about and plan their trips. Interesting to note in passing that these regions, generally and with exceptions, reflect an overall cultural contiguity based on the three great historic linguistic divisions of Europe: Germanic, Romance, and Slavic. (Sorry, Celts, you used to be the fourth, but eighteen centuries of getting invaded by everybody and their uncle ousted your languages from that position.) (WT-en) Sailsetter 10:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

All very logical, but unfortunately that's going to fail when Poles, Slovenes etc start throwing hissy fits about being labeled "Eastern European". Plunking eg. Austria into "Northern Europe" is also a little contrived, to say the least... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
As for the first, I didn't realize Eastern Europe was a pejorative name; as for the second, whatever the compass says. Austria surely has a "look and feel" closer to its northern neighbors than its southern ones, and travelers are more likely to consider it part of a Northern Europe itinerary than a Southern Europe one. At any rate, names can be fiddled with to accommodate various hobby horses even if the regions remain the same. (Incidentally, Rick Steves, Lonely Planet, Berkeley Guides, National Geographic, Let's Go, Fodors, Rough Guides, and Frommers all have travel guides titled "Eastern Europe." The ones I've looked at include Poland and Slovenia, and probably all the rest do too.) (WT-en) Sailsetter 11:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
I for one think the new heirachy is splendid because it fits with groups of countries travellers would visit together - while eastern europe, the balkans, and greece/turkey is almost impossible to construct in a way that satisfies everyone, i think this get's pretty damn close. Scandiavia, Baltics, British Isles, Benelux and the Iberian penisula - are all natural regions, that also get's grouped together in most guidebooks. Italy makes perfect sense as a region in it's own right - as it's north-south diversity makes it hard to group naturally with anything else. I also think Greece, Turkey & Cyprus fit well together. So I don't know, maybe it's the name that does it for you. But i would strongly oppose your suggestion - it doesn't make sense for me. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Your grouping is very problematic. Where would Belgium go? Luxembourg? Switzerland? The UK and Ireland? The barrier would also be a highly politicized grouping, showing the former western and eastern blocs. It's not needed because a central european group makes perfect sense. I like the new proposal, because it shows a lot of logical groupings. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 18:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I note by the way that Wikivoyage Shared in its photo hierarchy divides Europe into Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean Europe, Northern Europe, and Western Europe -- the countries under each can easily be checked there. This seems to me an eminently sensible hierarchy which should just have been adopted by Wikivoyage. (WT-en) Sailsetter 12:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Well, that's pretty much the old hierarchy, and I still find them arbitrary. Grouping Scandinavia and the British isles together in a region doesn't make sense for me, I've never met anyone who was going on a trip to the UK and Scandinavia, and in terms of organising content it doesn't make sense for me either. Except for some naming issues, which makes it look a bit odd, I find the new regions very logical. Only issue is I would like the map updated --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (EST

Scandinavia?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Whoah, I completely missed this earlier, but why was Northern Europe renamed as "Scandinavia"? Because, technically speaking, Iceland and Finland are not in Scandinavia. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:58, 25 November 2008 (EST)

As I understand it definitions differ over whether Iceland and Finland are included under the name. And I believe the preference for the name derives from our general preference for names with historical/cultural significance, rather than bland directional names. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:11, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I don't see why Finland is shoudl not be there but maybe Iceland can be It's own region? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:13, 25 November 2008 (EST).
Because Finnish is not a Scandinavian language? Finland is not on the Scandinavian peninsular? The Finns are not a Scandinavian people? Finland is not a Monarchy? Because they drink more Vodka than the rest of Scandinavia combined - and hence group better with Russians? because of their liberal gun laws? because they've fought a century old struggle to rid themselves of Swedish influence? Oh the reasons are many....
Anyway I still find that it's mainly people of the Nordic countries who care about the correct usage of the term, whereas for the most part, the entire rest of the world (except perhaps people from the Baltics) are happy to slap the Scandinavia label to Finland and Iceland as well. I personally think it's just fine to call the region Scandinavia - "The Nordic countries" seems a bit arbitrary. (WT-en) Sertmann 00:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)
And let me just clarify that the vodka thing is an attempt at some humour, seems everything is misunderstood these days --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 00:30, 26 November 2008 (EST)
I, personally, don't really mind either, but there are quite a few people who do... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)

It seems to me that arguments like the above are beside the point. Wikivoyage is supposed to be traveler-centered, and from the viewpoint of most travelers, surely Scandinavia includes Finland. I believe every standard guidebook on Scandinavia (Frommers, Rough Guide, etc.) includes Finland, which I cite not to argue that Wikivoyage should do it just because they do it, but as further evidence that in the opinion of almost all professional travel writers and guidebook publishers, who ought to know, travelers expect Scandinavia to include Finland, and that's why Wikivoyage should too. Iceland is a little more ambiguous, but travelers are going to consider it part of Scandinavia if it's in any region. (WT-en) Sailsetter 13:52, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Exactly, I would have never grouped Finland w Russia but I always thought it of Scandinavia. It seems to have a smilar culture from my view. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:56, 26 November 2008 (EST).
Nobody is disputing that the Nordic countries belong together. The problem is the label "Scandinavia", which is, strictly speaking, inaccurate. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:36, 1 December 2008 (EST)
The meaning of a word, any linguist or lexicographer will tell you, is determined by its usage. As I've pointed out, in the travel industry in the English speaking world, the word "Scandinavia" in actual usage includes Finland. (WT-en) Sailsetter 11:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Strictly speaking, all these regions are inaccurate. Central Europe is not the real center, the British Isles include Ireland and Moldova is not close to the Balkan Mountain Range. However, for the traveler and for most people, these regions are easily recognizable and make sense. Besides, not even Denmark belongs to the Scandinavian Peninsula, and it would be logical if it was included. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)
So if guidebooks and many people include Finland and Iceland in Scandinavia, wikivoyage should use it as well? If something is wrong, it doesn't make it less wrong if many make the mistake. With such a point of view wikivoyage should claim a brick to be round if just enough people claim a brick to be round, or maybe wikivoyage should state that you can see the great wall of China from the moon, which indeed alot of people think... False facts doesn't make wikivoyage useful to people. Scandinavia is Only Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Nordic countries are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland (And Fareoe Islands, Åland and Greenland). Check [5], [6] for ref. --83.109.119.113 08:50, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
There is no straight answer to this, and claiming you have the absolute truth is a bit headstrong don't you think? to quote your own source:
"Worldwide, casual and unofficial use of the term "Scandinavia" is a common reference to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but also includes Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands"
Or look up in any English language dictionary or encyclopædic source, and I'll bet you it will mention Iceland and Finland in there as well. Since we cater to English speakers here, I still find the common English International definition, to be the correct for a project like ours, exactly because we are not wikipedia, but a travel guide. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 16:21, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
To me who lives in Norway. Scandinavia is Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The Nordic countries are Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, Åland Islands, Faroe Islands. But what is important is what makes sense to the visitor. So if Scandinavia is all the five countries to the visitor, thats OK for me. Anyway we can't call the article The Nordic Coutries. The Nordic perhaps... (WT-en) ViMy 20:41, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm refering to the Scandianvian and Nordic usage of the terms, which should be respected. If there is some common thought-messup with nordic-scandinavia that doesn't make it right to continiue placing false info on wikivoyage, like i already pointed out. Loads of people think the great wall of china is visible from the moon, is that reason good enough to write it as a fact? Anyway if you want the "absolute truth" you have to refer to the usage of the terms in Scandinavia and in the Nordics. Just as a note, The Netherlands is extremely often incorrectly called Holland, but wikivoyage uses Netherlands. It's also a matter of respect, i doubt that all finns or icelandics likes to be called scandinavians, just like sami's don't like the term lapp or inuits on Greenland don't like to be refered to as eskimos.--83.109.119.113 04:42, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
We're actually a fair amount of Scandinavian regular contributors to Wikivoyage (I'm Danish - and fully aware of local definition), and no one has had any raving objections about this before. It's basically the same discussion as below, though, I still think you'll be hard pressed to find any Finns or Icelandics who would find a regional label as Scandinavia on collaborative travel guide hidden away on the internet, to be offensive. Anyway, the way this place works is by consensus, so if you find sufficient support for your view, we'll change it, but for now there is definitely no clear consensus on the change. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:37, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
Right, this should make everybody shut up --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:40, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
While I don't think you needed to be quite so harsh, I agree that that website clears up any arguments pretty succinctly. Now if only we could get the Irish and British tourism boards to do the same thing... (WT-en) LtPowers 09:29, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Geographically eastern half of Iceland and Greenland is not part of Europe so if this is being defined geographically that those arias should not be included.

So we all agree that the definition should be from a cultural standpoint? Than what about Greenland. Culturally its connection is no less than Iceland's. The Nordic console is the only organizations that connects all these countries together politically and culturally. And by its name alone it describes the area as the Nordic Countries, not the Scandinavian Countries. And by that cultural definition Greenland should be part of this page. Many Icelandic travel companies sell tours to Greenland. Einsiol (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, the definition should be what is best for the traveler. Greenland is not in Europe, so from a traveler's perspective it doesn't make much sense to include it in a European region. Iceland is only half in Europe, but the other half is (obviously) extremely close to Europe, and thus it's reasonable to include it in a European region. We have many cases where common sense is not sufficient to determine a regional breakdown, but this isn't one of them. LtPowers (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(My comment on Scandinavia talk page:) From one perspective the "Scandinavia" label is functional and not problematic, there is a redirect and readers are informed that "Nordic" is the accurate term for what is covered - from the traveler's perspective the "most common English name" is fine. From another perspective it is unsatisfactory to sustain a misconception or an inaccurate terminology. Historically the concept of Scandinavia was limited to the southern part of the peninsula (plus Denmark), and encyclopedias points out that "Scandinavia is erroneously used about all Nordic countries". In Norway (and many other countries I guess), "Holland" is a common (perhaps the most common) name for the Netherlands, the Wikivoyage article is still called Netherlands. Likewise, "Burma" redirects to Myanmar (interestingly, Wikipedia still uses "Burma"). Even if Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia and the heading of the article is not a big deal, I don't think it is right to maintain an error. Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

British Isles

British Isles should not be one of the sub-regions of Europe for the following reasons:

  • This is likely to cause offence to some with a different world view, particularly those from Ireland who may view the word association with Britain as inaccurate and offensive.
  • The term is archaic and not accurately defined by any modern worldwide standard.
  • There is specific benefit to the traveler of using this grouping, unlike some other contentious regions which reflect the reality of the situation to the traveler.
  • Wikivoyage already has its work cut out defining regions and boundaries in those areas of the world where they are subject of wars, and centuries of bitter disputes. This is one that is just unncessary

Suggest replacing the term with just United Kingdom and Ireland

--(WT-en) Inas 22:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I disagree. British Isles is a common (over 30 million Google hits) geographical term and a valid region. In particular, the Isle of Man is technically not part of the UK, hence not of "United Kingdom and Ireland". Where would it fit in your scheme? (WT-en) Pashley 23:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Yeah, the only way I can see to resolve this would be to have a region: The [[British Islands]] and [[Ireland]]. But that seems a little silly. I really prefer not to cave in to cartographic politics when trying to write travel guides. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:06, 19 December 2008 (EST)
British Isles is a common term to define this region and easily recognizable for travellers. Even in Ireland people know immediately what you mean. If the Irish have a problem with this term, that's too bad because there is no appropriate alternative. British Isles is the only term in common usage. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 14:05, 21 December 2008 (EST)
The only alternative is Atlantic Archipelago. This is a politically correct term, used in some scientific documents and mostly in Ireland. But it's not a common term to travellers. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 06:27, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Though some dictionaries may define British Isles as including Ireland, in fact in the travel industry the phrase doesn't seem to be used that way. Almost all guides I've seen to the region use "Britain and Ireland" or some variant thereof: there's Let's Go the Budget Guide to Britain & Ireland, Charming Small Hotel Guides: Britain & Ireland, Michelin Red Guide 2008 Great Britain & Ireland, The Oxford Guide to Literary Britain and Ireland, and others. I've only rarely seen travel guides titled "British Isles," and the few that I have seen don't include Ireland. If we're going to appeal to common usage in standard travel guides, then we should use "Britain and Ireland" or "UK and Ireland" rather than "British Isles" for the region. (WT-en) Sailsetter 11:12, 23 December 2008 (EST)
I suggested British-Irish isles on the talk page, if British isles won't fly, that's the 2nd best option imho. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 12:54, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Agreed. As far as I can tell, "British Isles" is pretty unambiguous as far as what territory it covers; the only possible objection is political rather than geographic or vernacular. With apologies to the Irish, the fact remains that Ireland and Britain are the two largest islands in the British Isles. Sertmann's suggestion seems the most reasonable compromise if the widely understood term is for some reason unacceptable. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:43, 5 January 2009 (EST)
No, there's another possible objection described two lines above by me: the de facto standard among professional travel publishers in both their books and on their related web sites is "Britain and Ireland," not "The British Isles." (WT-en) Sailsetter 19:05, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Admittedly, I discounted that term because it's exclusive of several territories we wish to include in our region. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Sailsetter is entirely correct: the term "British Isles" is rarely if ever used in travel guides covering Ireland (for the obvious reasons). Where the guide covers Ireland and Britain, then "Britain and Ireland" is by far the most common term. I have never seen the term "British Isles" used in an Irish travel guide, particularly one written by Irish writers. My Lonely Planet guide springs immediately to mind, but even British based tourist organisations such as this expressly use 'Britain and Ireland' rather than "British Isles".86.42.71.111 22:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Again, "Britain and Ireland", however many other guides use it, is exclusive of islands that we wish to cover, islands which collectively are known, even in Ireland, as "British Isles". (WT-en) LtPowers 13:44, 19 January 2009 (EST)


I'm cutting the Gordian knot. The article has been moved to British and Irish Isles (after deleting the copy+paste that was already there). I'm leaving the redirect as an extremely likely search term. This should be a reasonable compromise. See Project:Votes for deletion/January 2009#British Isles for the deletion discussion. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:49, 26 January 2009 (EST)

"British and Irish Isles" is a ridiculous overtly political term, it is not a common term at all. "Britain and Ireland" would be way more logical. Just look here which definitions are used (from Wikipedia): [7]. :(WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Again, for the third time, "Britain and Ireland" does not include several islands which we want to include in the region. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)
I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic here -- from the traveler's point of view, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are a part of Britain, and obviously part of any region that covers the UK and Ireland. I also think that "Britain and Ireland" is the most common, the most obvious and the clearest name for it, and that the consensus here is definitely leaning in that direction.
Let me reiterate, though, that I think a region article for the two is unnecessary. Just "Britain and Ireland" will do fine. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:47, 27 February 2009 (EST)
And in what region would we place the Channel Islands, then? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:29, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Under United Kingdom, obviously. (Yes, I know they're Crown Dependencies and technically not a part of the UK, but who gives a shit?) (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)
I agree with Globetrotter. "British and Irish Isles" or "Atlantic Archipelago" are absurd. I do think we need a minimal region article here, just links to other pages, and I think it should be called "British Isles". That said, there's almost no need to link to it; most links can be to Britain and Ireland. (WT-en) Pashley 06:06, 27 February 2009 (EST)
I agree it should be "British Isles"; that's the accepted geographic term, at least to anyone who isn't Irish. But that created an awful lot of dissension as you can see above and in the AfD. So I included Irish Isles as a compromise. That's how we do things here. I had thought it had worked, too, but Globe-trotter has seen fit to reopen this can of worms. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:29, 27 February 2009 (EST)
I'm OK with having British Isles as a disambig page, but I don't see what value it adds to make it a full-fledged region level: virtually all the content would just duplicate the UK and Ireland articles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)
I'll just repost this from the talk page here: Yeah, and expanded section on Irish sea ferries, Ireland-Northern Ireland border practicalities, details on implications of the Common travel area for foreign visitors travelling between the two countries, are all subjects that I think could be covered in greater detail than in the country pages, with good results. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Sigh, this issue had seemed at rest and peaceful. British & Irish Isles gets the point across, serves a purpose per User:Sertmann, includes all the little territories we want to include, should not offend anyone who lives anywhere within the realm of reasonableness. Fin. I hope. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:22, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Why all the focus on the fact that the Channel Islands are not part of "Britain and Ireland"? When most travelers hear "Britain and Ireland", they think of the Island of Man and the Channel Islands belong with that grouping. Finland (and geographically even Denmark) is not a part of Scandinavia. Yet, we include it in there. Moldova is not part of the Balkans, yet we include it in there. We do that there, because it's a logical grouping to the traveller. And there, barely any complaints are heard, while here it's suddenly a big issue. 146.50.144.53 12:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry my solution was not satisfactory to all. I would like to make another proposal: what about "Ireland and the British Isles"? That clearly separates Ireland from the dreaded "British" appellation, without inventing the term "Irish Isles". (WT-en) LtPowers 08:38, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

No! Our policy is to use "the most common English name". I think that is a good policy. It seems to me that we should follow it here, so "British Isles" is obviously the correct choice.
However, "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" may be better choices to avoid offending people. They may not be the most common terms for the region, but they are combinations of standard terms and other guides use them. Those are worth discussing.
As for "Atlantic Archipelago", "British and Irish Isles", or ""Ireland and the British Isles", none of those are in common use and therefore I do not think any of them should even be considered as possible titles. (WT-en) Pashley 10:26, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
If I may, "Ireland and the British Isles" is also a combination of standard terms. I don't see how that's any different from "Britain and Ireland" in that respect. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:45, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Ireland and the British Isles strikes me as incorrect, since Ireland is part of the British Isles. I prefer the British and Irish Isles fudge, as we have it now. Although it may not be in very popular use ([8]), even if it is not, it remains very much an accurate name.
A title like UK & Ireland, or Britain & Ireland obscures the purpose of the article, as it raises the question of why we don't just keep the articles separate entirely. The reason is that they are part of the same archipelago, which can support a useful article in terms of geography, cultural history, and transport. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:19, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

So, the geographically-correct term is not usable for political reasons. The remaining commonly-used terms are incomplete. And the remaining terms that actually describe the scope of the article are not commonly used. Rather sticky wicket here, eh wot? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:00, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

The geographically correct term is the commonest English name and should be used. See Evan's comments the first time this came up; I agree completely.
The main reason we now have a problem is that you chose to "cut the Gordian knot" instead of waiting for a consensus. You also invented, apparently out of thin air, a new term "British and Irish Isles" that had, as far as I can see, not even been mentioned in previous discussion. If I had not been on holiday and away from the computer at the time, I'd have immediately reverted that. I know your intentions were good, and trying for a compromise is basically a good idea, but you do need consensus before making obviously controversial changes.
I'd say the article should clearly be moved back to "British Isles". That's our policy; use the commonest English name. My idea of compromise would be agreeing to use "Britain and Ireland" instead, of course with "British Isles" as a redirect. (WT-en) Pashley 10:49, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
He didn't grab it out of thin air - I came up with that name, as an attempt to compromise, though I like British Isles way better, and it wouldn't make us look like complete idiots, as wikipedia, BBC, Encyclopædia Britanica Microsoft Encarta, Merriam Webster, Urban Dictionary, Answers.com, Princeton University , Oxford University already uses the term, and Google gives 24 million hits for the term - although there is also a compressive article describing the dispute here - basically saying that on government level, Ireland discourages use of the term. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 11:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
I interpreted the status quo as inherently unstable and therefore in need of some sort of change so that a consensus could be developed. I would love to have this article at the geographically correct term, but my understanding is that that is violently unacceptable to some users here. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:41, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
You are right that it's problematic, but only for political reasons. "British Isles" is the most common term, but unacceptable for political reasons. However, we cannot just make up terms that don't exist. That's why "British and Irish Isles" cannot be used, it simply doesn't exist. There are no "Irish Isles", there is only one Irish island called Ireland. So instead, I thought "Britain and Ireland" would be a good compromise, indicating the importance of these two big islands in the region. Sure, there are some other minor islands as well, but every traveller would almost instantly connect them with Britain and Ireland, as they are the largest and most dominant. Like the Isle of Man is laying in between them. And Jersey and Guernsey are British crown dependencies. 77.251.187.25 07:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

We are pretty much bound to the alternatives list given here [9], as those are recognizable terms for travelers. British and Irish Isles is not in that list, it's not recognizable, nor used anywhere, sounds way too overtly political correct and ridiculous, so it has to change. British Isles is unacceptable because of Irish objections. Britain and Ireland was not acceptable because of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man not being included (though I did not find this a problem, others did).

What about British Isles and Ireland? It is in the list of alternative terms, it fixes the whole Ireland-dispute-thing and still manages to be recognizable because of the sentence British Isles in it.

(WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:22, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Fine with me. The redundancy doesn't bother me a whole lot, and it might keep the Irish happy. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:12, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
I dislike all the fudge options. For my money the two titles that work are Britain and Ireland and British Isles. Yes I know Britain and Ireland has technicalities re the IOM and CI but that's irrelevant from the traveller's perspective. I'd prefer British Isles as that's the correct term, but Britain and Ireland is an acceptable compromise. British and Irish Isles is not a tolerable compromise. :-) Now, I'm very aware of the need to try to form a consensus but I fear this knotty issue isn't going to get one. How about if we rename to Britain and Ireland for the time being and then I can sleep at nights without grinding my teeth knowing the Irish Isles are up there on the server, for all the world to see, making me ashamed to have my name as a contributor? ;-) (WT-en) Andyfarrell 15:27, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
It's starting to grow on me but for completeness I would much prefer any of the other options. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:39, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
I'm with Andy here. As I see it, "British Isles" is obviously correct. If we are going to bow to political correctness (we shouldn't), then "Britain and Ireland" is the way to do that. None of the "fudge options" are worth considering. (WT-en) Pashley 22:56, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
I've renamed the page to Britain and Ireland. My reasoning is that British and Irish Isles was a unilateral action which didn't fit the consensus or serve the traveller, while I accept that LtPowers did it with the best of intentions. Even if Britain and Ireland doesn't end up being the permanent name I feel certain it is closer to consensus than the former name. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 05:41, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

I see the isin's havn't successfully moved. Can anyone help me with that please? (WT-en) Andyfarrell 05:45, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

You need to go to every single article under Britain and Ireland and move them manually. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:57, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
Ah. Hopefully caught them all now. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 08:52, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
I'll see what I can do. I support Britain and Ireland as well, as it's a neutral geographic term. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 06:54, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

I still think "Europe : Britain & Ireland : Ireland" looks silly, sigh --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:09, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, and it needlessly excludes several outlying islands. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:46, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Aegean Archipelago

Would anyone have any raving objections to create this region for Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. I know Cyprus technically isn't within the Archipelago, but practically and culturally it certainly is. And not having a proper region messes up the hierarchy. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 05:24, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's fine as is. I don't see a need for a region to tie together the three, and agreeing on a name would be hard to impossible anyway. "Archipelago" is misleading, since the vast majority of Greece and Turkey are not islands. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:48, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I also see serious objections to this. First, "Aegean Archipelago" isn't a term in general use among travel guides, or geographers, or the general public. If you said "Aegean Archipelago" to most people, their reaction would be "Huh?" I myself have traveled extensively in parts of the areas mentioned above, and if you asked me about the "Aegean Archipelago," I'd have no idea what you were talking about. Secondly, the countries in question do not in fact constitute an archipelago, either in the strict geographical terminology sense, or in the commonly used sense, of the word: an archipelago describes a concentrated group of many small islands, especially if they are in a chain: the places mentioned are only three, which is not "many," and only one of them is an island, and the one that is an island is a large, not small, island, and even if they were all three small islands, they would be too far separated from each other to be considered an archipelago. (WT-en) Sailsetter 10:41, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I've never heard about "Aegean Archipelago" and I don't think others have as well. Sounds like a constructed name instead of a popular one. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)
How about Northeastern Mediterranean? It’s mostly the Mediterranean which defines this group –and the travel scene of each individual country– after all, and they are –and no other country– located in its northeastern corner. -(WT-en) Vidimian 13:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, but I don't think this term is recognizable enough. I wouldn't think of Greece and Turkey when I heard it. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

France grouped with "Latin Europe" instead of Benelux?

Hi all,

Sorry to open this controversial topic again. First, I would say that I appreciate all the time you spent discussing the Europe hierarchy which is definitely a can of worms and I am pretty happy with the final result map. Still... I find weird to group France with Benelux and leave Italy alone as a single region. I would suggest to leave Benelux alone and group France with Italy and Iberia in a region called Latin Europe (I think we should forget geographical names like Western, South-Western, Southern or Mediterranean, and rather choose a cultural name which "Latin" sums up very well to me).

The major drawback I can see is the unbalanced resulting regions. Yes, Benelux alone is very small but it's a very common grouping within the EU and we already have the Baltic States and Caucasus as small regions too so why not?

And yes, Latin Europe would be quite big but the four countries, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, have much more in common (latin language, roman catholic religion, wine culture) than France with Netherlands. An alternative could be to leave France alone like Italy, but that may be too much splitting and I find nice to see each country as part of a bigger set to avoid jealousy :).

Now, if everybody is tired of those endless debates, I'll leave it like this (but probably change the French version though... :)

If there's no objection, I can modify the map and the page. (WT-en) Joelf 12:21, 19 December 2010 (EST)

France is so big and influential, I think it deserves a region of its own. It is the largest tourist destination in the world. As of current, there is no France and the Benelux page, so this in practice already is the case. If anything, we could give the Benelux and France a different color on the map and the problem is solved.
I also think France does not completely belong to "Latin Europe". Large parts of France are Celtic (northwest) or have a Germanic tradition (northeast). To me, Paris feels more like a Northern European city, but that could be subjective. You name some defining factors making France "Southern": but "Catholicism" as one of the dividing factors doesn't hold up, as France has more in common with the Benelux as both regions mainly consists of non-believers. And in the north of France, beer is a major competitor to wine. Of course the Côte d'Azur belongs to that region, but I think that just shows my point: France is so big, it's better off with it's own region (like California and Florida in the United States of America regional hierarchy). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:56, 24 December 2010 (EST)
I take your point: France is definitely not completely "Latin"; Brittany could be grouped with Ireland and Alsace with Germany to some extend but to me, it is still in majority Latin, like Belgium is in majority Flemish and Switzerland in majority Swiss-German. You're right to say that France consists now mostly of non-believers. I'm not sure young Spaniards today are any more believers. I thought more of a cultural state of mind: northern Europe is more "protestant non-believer", liberal, pragmatic, and southern Europe "catholic non-believer", social, ideological, state-driven. Funny though: I was convinced that Netherlands were a typical protestant country but according to Wikipedia, Roman Catholicism is still the largest religion (well: 26 %...). But does it really matter for a traveller? OK, I realize it's not so obvious after all so let's leave it like this for now. I may only change the map colour and split the two items if I have time. Thanks for your input! (WT-en) Joelf 15:53, 27 December 2010 (EST)
Benelux seems a bit on the small side; I'm fairly certain that's why they were grouped with France on the map. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:09, 28 December 2010 (EST)
Fair enough; let's leave them grouped together then. (WT-en) Joelf 23:52, 28 December 2010 (EST)
Being small is not a good reason for grouping them, the Baltic states are also small and separate. I think it's fair to have France and the Benelux separate as they in practice are already. About the Netherlands, of course it was mostly a protestant nation, but most protestants have turned into non-believers, while more Catholics in the South held on to their faith. I also understand your cultural north-south divide in Europe, everyone feels it exists, but I think it goes straight through France, which makes France a hard case to group with either Northern Europe (Germanic/Celtic) or Southern Europe (Latin). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 02:08, 29 December 2010 (EST)
An alternative, to avoid too many items, could be to leave Benelux alone and group "France and Italy" under the same colour but with different links (like "France and Benelux" currently). BTW, (WT-en) globe-trotter, thanks for all your maps; I will translate them little by little. (WT-en) Joelf 22:55, 30 December 2010 (EST)
I also think it would be fine to de-group France and the Benelux. I think the grouping was originally my idea, but it wasn't something I or anyone else had really given much thought to. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:51, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Benelux together is about the size of Lithuania alone, so I don't think the Baltic states are an apt comparison. But I don't really have strong feelings either way; I'm just worried that the Benelux area will be lost on the map when viewed at article size. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:47, 1 January 2011 (EST)
Ok, I've switched France to orange like Italy and Benelux is kept in yellow therefore not really lost on the map to me. If there is any problem, tell me. Happy New Year ! (WT-en) Joelf 23:57, 2 January 2011 (EST)
The grouping of France with Italy to me makes less sense than the grouping with Benelux. I'd be a lot more in favor of having Latin Europe as well. But overall, I think we should just give France a separate color on the map and add a new category. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:17, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Done. Yet another alternative, if we want to stick to the 7±2 rule, could be to group Benelux with Central Europe giving specific details about Benelux on that page, and have a dedicated Latin Europe page with specific details of Iberia, France, Italy. (WT-en) Joelf 17:49, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Central Europe is big enough, and Holland and Belgium are clearly Western and not Central anyway. =) I too would prefer fewer regions here on the Europe page, but sometimes we have to bend the rule of seven. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:59, 3 January 2011 (EST)

Grouping the Benelux with Central Europe wouldn't make sense, I've never heard of that before. I am starting to feel more for a Latin Europe, though. It could be a good way to get less regions and I have to agree that they do make a logical grouping (as their language and culture derives from Latin culture). It would also solve the "European Microstates" problem, as all of them are either within Latin Europe or Central Europe. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Kosovo

Swept in from the pub

I've been reverting a lot of political edits from this user [10]. However, I have to agree somewhat with his removal in Kosovo in the Europe regions list (in brackets at Balkans). Listing Kosovo is logical, as Kosovo de facto is an independent state, and travellers have to deal with Kosovar authorities in order to go there. However, if we list Kosovo in this list, we should also list Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia and Transnistria, as the situation in these de facto states are not really different from Kosovo. So should we either include all of these states or remove them all? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:33, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

We should only remove Kosovo if we're going to make it a region of Serbia. Otherwise, we list it because that's how we've defined it as a travel region. Politically, I note that none of the other regions you've mentioned have international recognition on the level of Kosovo, which has been recognized as independent by about 40% of the countries of the world. Of the regions you mentioned, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are treated as regions while Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus use the country template. The latter two should be added if we are going to continue to treat them that way, even though they have virtually no international recognition. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:52, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
That would be pretty random. All these states have limited recognition and all are not recognized by the United Nations. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistra shouldn't be "regions" on Wikivoyage, as they are de facto states with their own rules, immigration policy and currency. However, I'm a bit reluctant on adding them to the Europe page, as we'd have to add a lot of countries on there many people barely know. Also, these political edits are getting annoying, and we'd have less of them if we'd just follow the UN. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:32, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
It's not random, unless you assume the decision to go with a country template or region template for those articles is random. And Kosovo has far more international recognition as independent than the other regions you mention. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:58, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, calling some of those entities "regions" and others "countries" is random, as they are more or less similar. About Kosovo, is that relevant for the traveller that a few more states have recognized Kosovo than have Abkhazia? Both are de facto states that a traveller has to deal with and both are not recognized by the United Nations. If the "degree of recognition" would be of concern, we'd be opening an endless can of worms. How many states should recognize a de facto state before it gets a mention on the Europe page? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
If you consider 75 to be "a few", I suppose you'd have a point. Otherwise, I have to wonder why you're minimizing Kosovo's status. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Kosovo is not recognized by the United Nations, just like many other de facto states. Like I said, the amount of other states recognizing a de facto state is not relevant to traveller, as the traveller has to deal with de facto states, whether they are recognized or not. Kosovo is recognized by 75 states, Taiwan by 23 states, Abkhazia by 4 states and Nagorno-Karabakh only by non-UN-states. Where do we draw the line? At recognition by 5 states? Just for the heck of it? The traveller has to get visas and follow the rules of all these de facto states. So we should treat them all equally and in the same manner. I am not "minimizing" Kosovo's status in anyway, I just think that if Kosovo is listed, all these de facto states should be listed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:06, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
But as you said, that opens a big can of worms: "we'd have to add a lot of countries on there many people barely know". Not every breakaway region has to be treated the same. I'm not saying official recognition is the only metric we should use, but by the same token, neither should UN recognition (elsewise, bye-bye Taiwan). It's better to look at each of them on a case-by-case basis. For regions for which we use the country template, we treat them like other countries. For regions for which we use the region template, we treat them like other regions. I don't think there's any objective metric that fits every possible case. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:31, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, there is an objective metric, that is listing all of them or listing none of them. That's why I think all de facto states ought to be included, not just a few we like to pick for no objective reason whatsoever. About those templates, they should all either have country templates or region templates, as they are all states with limited recognition. Calling some "regions" and other "countries" would be arbitrary, as all of them operate like states with their own visas, currency, national anthem, flags, etc. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:39, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Kaliningrad

I don't think this has been greatly discussed. I'd suggest putting it in with Baltics, rather than Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Any comments?(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Baltic States are part of EU and Schengen, Kaliningrad is part of Russia. Therefore, travel and visa requirements are totally different. Historical and cultural aspects are different as well, because three Baltic States are national republics, whereas Kaliningrad is essentially a Russian region built on the German foundation. You won't find any common information for Baltic States + Kaliningrad (beyond geography and Curonian spit, of course). Atsirlin (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
By political/visa reasoning, French Guiana and Reunion should be grouped with France, which is nonsense. Also, a generation or more of Soviet dominion does mean there's quite a lot of common cultural ground.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
It also shares some history with parts of Baltic States, being part of East Prussia etc. 89.74.233.28 16:34, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
Kaliningrad belonged to Eastern Prussia. Baltic states were part of the Russian empire. Atsirlin (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
Wikivoyage says that French Guiana and Reunion have different immigration rules, so they may not be a good example. Alaska would be a better analogy. Your suggestion implicitly means that Alaska should be considered as an independent region and not as a part of US. I don't think it is right.
I can't agree with the cultural argument either. The culture of Baltic States stems from their local nations that were influenced by the Soviet Union. Kaliningrad neither has local nations nor boasts any particular local culture. It is same part of Russia as Vyborg, Pskov, and Smolensk. Atsirlin (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
Fundamentally, Kaliningrad is not a Baltic State. Mentioning it in the article as being adjacent to them seems fine, but removing it from the Russian hierarchy would be crazy. --Peter Talk 02:53, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
Having just spent a few days in Kaliningrad on a trip through the Baltics, I am well aware how fundamentally Russian the place is. This is why I think it should be in grouped in the Baltics here. This is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia, and the traveler comes first.
A trip through the Baltics is very much enlivened by a stop in Kaliningrad; whereas the extra expense and hassle of getting a double entry or flight from Russia proper is not worth it. It is after all just another Russian city, and there's plenty of those in Russia.
So my argument is this: Kaliningrad belongs on a traveler's Baltic itinerary, not a Russian one.
(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
@Travelpleb: I have travelled to the Baltic states and didn't went to Kaliningrad because to obtain a Russian visa is crazy. I suggest to keep it in the Russian sphere as most travellers will need to face huge amounts of bureaucrac(z)y to visit that place. Yes it is next to the other Baltic states but off-limits to most travellers due to the visa madness by our Russian friends... I think we can only consider it different when russian visa regime would relax. Jc8136 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
Getting a single entry visa is easy enough. Such a visa would let you pass through Kaliningrad but not enter Russia proper (without an expensive flight). This makes Kaliningrad all the more disconnected (from a traveler's perspective) from Russia proper.
Crossing borders and bridging these kinds of gaps is what travel's all about isn't it?
Putting Kaliningrad with the Baltic would help dismantle the Mauer im Kopf attitude that people have towards Russia. (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
Of course crossing borders and broaden your own perspective is an essentiell part of travelling but real walls can't be circumvented. Imho Kaliningrad is way harder to travel than to Gdansk. The traveller should note that Kaliningrad is geographically part of the Baltics but that due to visa issues it is pretty hard to get their. E.g. German nationals need to pay at least 75 Euros for a single entry visa and then wait 20 working days (one month!) or pay 150 Euros and wait three days plus at least ten other documents (health insurance, copy of last pay check!!!). Contrary to that restriction all other Baltic states are part of the Schengen visa regime and therefore much easier to travel for everyone. Russia is not North Corea when it comes to visa but they work their way in that direction. I think the traveller should be aware that by all means Kaliningrad is Russia and not part of the Baltics. Jc8136 (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
The flight from Kaliningrad to Moscow costs 100€, which is comparable to the cost of the single-entry visa (Jan, things are not generally as bad as you describe, but 70-100€ is a realistic estimate for a seamless visa procedure in Germany). Therefore, I don't think that many travelers will skip the opportunity of traveling into Central Russia once they went through the hassle of visa procedure (not to mention that even Central Russia is way more exotic than Kaliningrad or Baltic states). I know several people who explored nearly every corner of the Baltic States but refused to enter any Russian territory because of the visa issues, customs, concerns about the car, etc.
I think that your suggestion fits well to Russians or to those who do not need a visa for Russia, but such people are, unfortunately, a minority here. I really like our present layout where we mention Kaliningrad on the Baltic States page without elaborating on this essentially Russian region. Otherwise, the page becomes really messy because it will include incoherent information on nations and cultures, as well as lots of stuff about border crossing, visa issues, etc. Atsirlin (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
I'm not an expert on the situation for Germans but from a look at Russia's Berlin embassy's website, it says that visa can take 4-20 working days. Companies that help Germans get visas say it takes five working days e.g. [11]. A simple tourist visa in the UK takes that long. The documents are not difficult to put together - you should have insurance anyway and bank statements are pretty simple. British people don't even need those documents. 75 EUR, while not great, is affordable. So the barrier to entry is only the perception that Russia is big, bad, scary and to be avoided.
The price of the visa is cheaper than the 4200 RUB (S7) - 5000 RUB (Aeroflot) flight to Moscow.
Many travelers skip central Russia and just spend a day or two in Moscow or Saint Petersburg and still justify the visa expense. Moscow and SP are crawling with tour groups, have you ever seen a coach load of Chinese in Krasnayarsk or Kyzyl?
Kaliningrad makes an exotic stop on a trip of the Baltics; but it's an underwhelming inconvenience as part of a Russian adventure.
I would love the Baltic article (which is far from complete and does not look like being in any risk of becoming messy) to say that this wierd little slice of Russia is an exciting bonus to a Baltic trip, not a nasty headache to miss out on. (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
If you want to advertise Kaliningrad by writing few sentences/paragraphs on the Baltic States page, that's fine with me. Please, plunge forward! But I definitely object to the idea of treating Kaliningrad as a separate travel region rather than a part of Russia. I have checked typical itineraries discussed on the TA and LP forums. Some people do travel from Poland to Kaliningrad and further to the Baltic States, but routes like Baltic States to St. Petersburg are by far more common. And many travelers simply visit Kaliningrad from Poland without even entering Lithuania.
The bottom line is that people coming from US, Japan or other distant countries will rather use their Russian visa for traveling to St. Petersburg. This is a good choice, because Kaliningrad is not nearly as spectacular. Europeans can think of different combinations: Baltic States + Kaliningrad, Poland + Kaliningrad, Poland - Kaliningrad - Central Russia, or even Kaliningrad itself as AirBaltic and AirBerlin have nowadays good connections to different European cities.
By the way, don't you want to create an itinerary "From Poland to Baltic States via Kaliningrad"? That should suit your purpose and make everyone happy. Atsirlin (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

@Alexander: Since 2010 Russia has tightened the visa regime for Germans et al as retaliation for Schengen visa requirements. Therefore a tourist visa for Russia is today pretty expensive and especially budget travellers (e.g. backpacker) will avoid it. Its sad to see that walls are raised again but travellers will need to know about the realities on the ground. I hope to see more Russian traveller but the absolute majority of the worldwide travellers will need a Russian visa to get in. As long as this doesn't change, Kaliningrad will only be less interesting for travellers to the Baltic States.

I just want to say that the official visa fee is still 35€, both for Germans going to Russia and for us going to Germany. But in reality you are likely to pay more, and the whole procedure is quite painful. Very sad! Atsirlin (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
Alexander: The base fee is 35 Euros but i will praise the lord for a whole day if my colleagues ever get the visa for that price;-) Last russian visa for a colleague cost more than 400 Euros... There are always issues. India is offering visa on arrival for German citizen from 1st Jan 2013 and that would be a great start for Russia. I understand the reciprocity thinking but usually it turns only worse. Really sad to see that these barriers are for political reasons! Jc8136 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

@Travelpleb: Kaliningrad should not be added to the Baltic states because 1. it's Russian territory and integral part of Russia, 2. No visa exception for Kaliningrad (Baltic states are part of EU/Schengen area and nothing like SAR Hong Kong and Macau have) and 3. Russia rules that area (exceptions are made for areas like Abkhazia which legally are part of Georgia but who are self-governed or effectively controlled). The Baltic states article needs infos on the three countries (which are beautiful) and not a wall, that most people will only intentionally get over. Jc8136 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Very well, I accept your points. Kaliningrad stays behind the curtain.
Out of general interest, you may find this heartening/insightful. [12](WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
Seen it and good step forward! Hope that (like India and SAR Hong Kong/Macau) in future they find a sensible solution. That would benefit everyone. Jc8136 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (CEST)
For the record I've heard a lot of "Balts", particularly Estonians complaining that even Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are lumped together arbitrarily, since they share little but 47 years of Soviet oppression. Estonians and the small Livonian minority often consider themselves Nordic, while Lithuanians and partly Latvians consider themselves Slavic. Throwing in Kaliningrad is not going to help on what is already a mess I think, though conversely it could help to underline that the forced marriage is purely for geographical convenience. Sertmann (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Transnistria

Transnistria has been taken out of WV's Moldova hierarchy. This is good: for the traveler, it is a different country. However, it now no longer in the Balkans and dangles free as a first level subsection of Europe. Does this mean it is grouped with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in the Europe hierarchy? And does this also mean that Europe's "Ukraine, Belarus and Russia" area should be gain the rather cumbersome title "Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Transnistria"? The situation is a little confused at the moment and I think needs some attention. I'm not exactly sure what though.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (CET)

Please, don't group Transnistria with "Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia". This is not only cumbersome, this is ridiculous=) Personally, I am fine with leaving Transnistria a "dangling" region because nobody knows where it actually belongs to. Transnistria is mentioned as one of European microstates (same as Abkhazia or South Ossetia that are not explicitly listed in Europe). This is enough. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2012 (CET)
Transnistria is bigger than Malta, San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, and Liechtenstein, all of which are listed explicitly on the main Europe page. I don't see any justification for hiding Transnistria under European Microstates. It should either be put in with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, or with the Balkans. LtPowers (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2012 (CET)
Balkans. It's a stretch, but it's easiest. --Peter Talk 22:28, 28 October 2012 (CET)
If you like, add it to the Balkans because this region is a strange combination anyway. But I think that any Transnistrian will be very upset about this "attribution" (same is true for Moldovans, though). In my opinion, size is not an issue. Malta, Andorra and others are officially recognized countries. Transnistria is a disputed territory, and it is marginally interesting for travelers. Therefore, there is no good reason to mention it explicitly. Otherwise, we have to mention all of these strange newborn states and add Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh to the list of Caucasian countries. But then we should also mention Christiania, shouldn't we? --Atsirlin (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (CET)
You're making a good case for adding all of those to the Microstates article, or something like it. --Peter Talk 01:27, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Something like it, maybe, but not Microstates itself. LtPowers (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2012 (CET)
I think Transnistria should be added back to Moldova. We shouldn't set a precedent for breakaway regions to have an article at the top of the hierarchy. What about those outside of Europe, like Tibet, Somaliland and Western Sahara? POLISARIO controls hardly any of the Western Sahara, yet it gets its own article independent of Morocco. While Somaliland is completely autonomous, and is under Somalia. There are many different standards. JamesA >talk 03:17, 29 October 2012 (CET)
The standard is one of de facto control. Wikitravel always recognized de facto control, and unless there's an unanticipated change in consensus, this project, under whatever name, will continue to recognize de facto control and not take sides in political disputes over control of land. Tibet, under the control of China, does not get recognized by this project as an independent country, while Somaliland, under complete control of its own territory, does. Western Sahara is essentially a region of Morocco ("occupied by Morocco" is the phrasing in the Western Sahara article), but part of its territory is under the control of the Polisario, so it gets treated differently, as befits the interests of the traveller - because we need to remember, the traveller always comes first here. And I think the traveller's interest would also tend to dictate that we should group Transnistria with the Balkans, since Moldova is grouped as such and Transnistria used to be de facto part of Moldova and still is widely recognized to be a de jure part of that nation. Any other grouping would seem confusing, I think. By the way, I would think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be listed as countries in the Caucasus region, with disclaimers but otherwise with the same style of listing as the Caucasian countries that the world recognizes - though I won't make this a cause celebre. And getting back to the Balkans article: If Transnistria gets a disclaimer, what about Kosovo? Are we going to judge the degree of legitimacy of a de facto independent country from how many countries recognize its independence? If so, what standard should we apply? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2012 (CET)

FYI, Northern Cyprus is also a part of Europe, and it is not mentioned in the region list. --Atsirlin (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2012 (CET)

So what criteria are we using to determine which de facto nations are mentioned? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2012 (CET)
How about a European de facto states article? We could link it in the same breath as European microstates and avoid listing every last one in the regionlist template. It would work as a sort of extended disambiguation, exactly like the microstates guide. --Peter Talk 14:23, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Do those articles have to be European-specific? I think they'd be better to cover the whole world, and we can list states like Western Sahara, Somaliland, etc. There aren't as many outside of Europe, so the list wouldn't become significantly larger. JamesA >talk 14:36, 29 October 2012 (CET)
I'm not sure have microstates lumped together is particularly helpful. One may travel from Ukraine to Moldova via Transnistria but not via Somaliland - the grouping is irrelavent for a traveler. I think Transnistria (and North Cyprus but we'll save that for later) should belong in a specific subsection rather than being straight under Europe. I think the Balkans, but that's subjective - I went there on a trip through the Balkans. I am well aware that the Slavic Russophone population of Transnistria may not like such a grouping, but it's unlikely that we're considering them as a target readership.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2012 (CET)
It looks like Transnistria will end up in the Balkans as the path of least resistence. Will that offend anyone greatly?(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Balkans sounds fine to me, so many small states and disputes make it a good fit. Sometime i can't believe these issues are still plaguing Europe... Jc8136 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Well, local people will be strongly offended, and it is certainly bad to rattle them. But I don't see any other simple way to solve this problem. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Balkans it is then. Upsetting any anglophone Transnistrian Wikivoyagers is not much to worry about. It's travelers not nationalists that we're writing for.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Greece in the Balkans?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Currently, Greece is in a quasi-region together with Cyprus and Turkey. Greece should be categorized with the Balkans because

  • Greece is geographically part of the Balkans
  • as few countries as possible should be in quasi-regions without an article
  • Greece has cultural ties with neighbouring Balkan countries

Should we move Greece? /Yvwv (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Previously we had an objection that the Grecian islands are not part of the Balkan peninsula, and that Greece is visited on Mediterranean itineraries, not Balkan itineraries. Also, it would leave Cyprus and Turkey just kind of hanging out. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if we'd lumped the Balkans and these three countries together into a single Southeastern Europe page, but we didn't go that route. Powers (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Most of Turkey (Anatolia including half of Istanbul) is in Asia according to the common definition. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, yes, but we include it in both continents. Powers (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greece is culturally definitely part of Balkans and also the only part lying on something that could be called a peninsula. —The preceding comment was added by 89.172.59.196 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikivoyage. Please sign posts on talk pages (only) by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row. The real question is how would it assist travelers to move Greece into the Balkan region in our coverage? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

New region: Latin Europe

Latest comment: 3 years ago75 comments17 people in discussion

Europe has too many regions. Putting micro-states such as Monaco and San Marino on top level, seems a bit awkward. There is not much beyond the trivial to say about Iberia, a region totally dominated by Spain. One solution would be the creation of Latin Europe, consisting of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, as well as Andorra, Gibraltar, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City. This region has a common heritage from the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the Napoleonic Empire, and the European Union, as well as common languages. Iberia would be deleted. /Yvwv (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Drafted here: [edit] Latin Europe.
Malta speaks a Semitic language, so if it is included I think the first paragraph of the draft would need to be adjusted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Looks good now – thanks, Yvwv. This seems like a coherent region to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
actually, that makes a surprising amount of sense... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The region needs a static map. Where are the tools for making those? (By the way, East Africa and the East African Islands) also need one each. /Yvwv (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I support this proposal. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Yvwv: Help for the creation of static maps can be found at Maps and Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition. I'll go ahead and get started on one for Latin Europe though. :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The original discussion that led to (the basic outlines of) the current division is at /Archive#2 proposals. There was a previous discussion about "Latin Europe" at #France grouped with "Latin Europe" instead of Benelux?. To be honest, I still feel Benelux is a little small, and this new continental section seems big (with three of the "big five" [or "big six" with Russia] European countries in it), but as before I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Powers (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Italy and Spain are in the same region of Europe, unless that region is either the Mediterranean (not even the western Mediterranean, given Italy's Adriatic coast) or Cold War-era "Western Europe", which is really not a region, as the east-west divide obscured the existence of Central Europe. So Yvwv, while I enjoyed reading your draft article, I think "Latin Europe" is an extra-region. I also don't really see any big problem in giving microstates equal billing with larger states in "Countries" lists and could go either way on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. Italy and Spain share a lot in common. If anything, France is the odd one out of those three. French is even harder to grasp for someone who speaks Spanish than Italian is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are we talking about languages or areas of Europe? I don't know Romanian, but I understand it's pretty similar to Italian. That doesn't make Romania and Italy part of the same region. And if you want to talk about languages that are "odd men out", how about Catalan and Languedoc? But no, let's focus on travel areas. How common would it be for a tourist to combine Italy and Spain, let alone Spain and Romania, in the same trip? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Moved Latin Europe to the main space, as an extra-hierarchical region. /Yvwv (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure about this one. We need fewer regions. Seen from Northern Europe these countries are part of Southern or Mediterranen Europe (along with Balkans). These countries have a lot in common in my eyes: related languages, life style etc. But Italy and Spain are far apart and not natural to consider for the same trip. And perhaps these countries are too big in size and as destinations. Benelux on the other hand is a bit small --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

"How common would it be for a tourist to combine Italy and Spain ... in the same trip?" Fairly common on Western Mediterranean cruise itineraries. A Google search reveals a number of overland options too. Powers (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
It does sort of make sense.. just France is a latin country, but you are not going to get much Mediterranean feel in the north part... Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, true, relevant for Mediterranean cruises. My main objection is that the region (Iberia+Italy+France etc) will be too big, while for instance Benelux is a very small region. France, Spain and Italy rank as no 1, 3 and 5 respectively in number of visitors (global ranking), and 1, 2 and 3 within Europe. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
It won't be that much bigger than Central Europe. And arguably we could tag Benelux on there, too. In part on account of the "blue banana" passing through there quite extensively. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The proposed region is much more politically and culturally coherent (when it comes to factors such as EU membership, language and religion) than Central Europe or the Balkans. /Yvwv (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Adding the Benelux into Latin of Western Europe is a no-go in my book. As a Dutchman, I can report on have little to do with France. Our cultures are different, our religion is largely different (though that isn't a big factor in Europe of the modern age), and so on. The only thing the Benelux has in common is the early 1800s, when we were part of France. The same applies to our relations to Spain, Italy and Portugal: We aren't associated. Yes, the Benelux region may be small, but that doesn't mean that it should be incorporated elsewhere. The only modification to the Benelux I can think of is dividing the region based on spoken language, but that won't help anything. The Benelux is fine as it is, you can have my word for it.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
If the Benelux really needs to be merged somewhere the British Islands (forming a Western Europe region) or Central Europe (which per 7 2 is already full, though) would be the best alternatives. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am reluctant to agree with that, but it might work, though it seems very arbitrary to me. Taking the Frisian Isles from Germany and Denmark and adding them onto the Benelux makes more sense to me that that. Either way, let's talk about this when the day comes that the Benelux is in a dire need of expanding, if that day ever comes.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I see no point in merging the Benelux to another region. These countries are a region since they are similar in culture and nature, and can easily be visited in one journey. In any case, the status of Benelux should be another debate. /Yvwv (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
To be perfectly clear, I was talking about merging Benelux to Central Europe if anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Let me then conclude this derailment from the original topic that I was only defending the sovereignty of the Benelux as a subregion of Europe after I had seen it being mentioned by several others. It wasn't my intent to send the discussion this way.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
A matrix of some defining features of Latin Europe. While both the euro and Schengen are recent institutions (and likely to change over the years), they are relevant to visitors. /Yvwv (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Criteria Portugal Spain Andorra France Monaco Italy SM Vatican Malta Gib. NL Belgium Lux. Switz. Romania Moldova Germany Poland
Roman Empire Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Little Yes Yes Yes Partly Little Little No
Romance language Yes Yes* Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes No Partly No Partly Partly Partly Yes* Yes* No No
Catholic majority Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Partly Little No Partly Yes
Euro as currency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes
Schengen area (de facto) Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
*=Except endemic minority languages
I think it is quite clear that Benelux belong together and if they are to be grouped into a different region than all of them. And Latin Europe is not a region in which the Netherlands even remotely fit. They do however have quite a few things in common with Northern Germany and England. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to size, Latin Europe has 185 million out of Europe's 742 million citizens (around 25%). The land area is around 1.5 million sqkm out of Europe's 10 million sqkm (around 15%). It has 9 out of the 46 functionally independent countries in Europe; without states with less than 100,000 citizens or not widely recognized (Kosovo and Transnistria), it is 5 out of 39. While the region is large, it is not too large to be practical. /Yvwv (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
What about putting Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and Benelux together in a sort of "Germanic Europe" region (perhaps a problematic name as it excludes the Nordic countries and the British Isles, but I think both of those are pretty clearly regions unto themselves) and making the balance of the current Central Europe region (which mostly consists of Slavic countries) a region of its own? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Germany and Poland together have roughly 120 million inhabitants. I don't think the proposed region is too large in terms of population. And I oppose the idea of tearing apart Central Europe. Bad enough that some western sources seem to think Central Europe is only a single country or doesn't exist at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Although I'm fine with trying to organize things better, I sort of feel that we are never going to find a satisfactory way to divide up Europe that suits everyone. I'd suggest leaving things as they are and focusing energies elsewhere. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
But what is there to say against Latin Europe in principle? And maybe we can put Greece into the Balkans as well? We'll probably have Greeks complaining about that a lot, but from a geographic standpoint, that's the peninsula Greece is on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is no perfect way group countries/destinations into regions. If we want to reduce the number of regions, Benelux is a much better candidate for merger than France, Iberia and Italy. These 3 receive about 35 % of all tourists in Europe and about 15 % of the world's tourists. So from a tourism perspective this is a huge region. The Baltic states is a second candidate for merger. Perhaps leave as is for now. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Why is it important or a good idea to reduce the number of regions? I, too, tend to think that the current regional division of Europe is OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
There are too many regions that basically consist of a single country... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
A deeper question: Why have regions at all? Why not just stick to continents, countries and cities?
IMO, regionalization has many practical uses for our material.
* Cognitive information structure. For the average human mind, it is difficult to get an overview of many objects in a list; the typical threshold is around 7-10 objects. Tree structures are useful; however, sticking to a specific numeral width for the whole geographic hierarchy is sometimes impractical (as it leaves some sub-state regions with only trivial information), but it can be widely applied.
* Itinerary theming. Specifically useful for a travellers' guidebook, as many journeys are either planned within a selected geographic region ("Let's go to the Caribbean for spring break!" "OK, where?") take place within one.
* Easy access to generalized information. Some city and country articles are overburdened by advice, which applies not only to that destination, but to a greater region. Much of the information for neighbouring countries (such as Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and so on, can be described in depth in an article about a collective region. /Yvwv (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Let's keep in mind here that we're talking about Continental Sections, not Regions as our geographical hierarchy defines them. Continental Sections, since they are groupings of Countries, are unavoidably going to be less coherent as travel destinations than Regions in general. Powers (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Why? National boundaries are just as arbitrary lines in the dirt as any other kind of boundary. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well their origin may be arbitrary, but today they mark divisions that have very real effects on the people living and visiting either side. Powers (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The subsequent discussion from my last comment just really reinforces my view that attempting to reoganise the regions and countries is a lot of effort for no actual benefit to Wikivoyage at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Furthermore, I think the current regions are fine. While we'll never find a perfect solutions, the current division is as good as any and makes sense. Drat70 (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
And when it makes sense to have regions that are essentially one country in order to serve the traveller, why on Earth would that be a problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Does it serve the traveler, though? There are undoubtedly things that Italy Spain and France have in common. And currently the only place where we can say and which has any likelihood of ever being read is in Europe or the various country articles. I mean the only thing that would change if we were to make Latin Europe hierarchical right now would be the breadcrumb. In fact we could even retain Iberia if some are so attached to it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
As the three of us have written much of the Iberia article, we seem to have some relevant experience of writing about continental section. My impression of writing about Iberia, is that it mostly becomes an article about Spain, with occasional references to Portugal; mention of Andorra and Gibraltar becomes a bit forced. Latin Europe is different; much can be said about the region in general, without one specific country overshadowing the others. By the way, the Latin Europe article is already longer than Balkans. /Yvwv (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
There are also things France has in common with the Low Countries, Germany and Switzerland, and there are things Italy has in common with the former Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Are they more than the things France has in common with the rest of Latin Europe? If you'd draw a map of Europe with lines of stuff that's the same and that's different, where would they bunch and where would they fan out? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
France shares a language with Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland, so that answer should be kind of obvious, no? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
While linguistic, religious and historical commonalities are all valid bases for grouping countries, from the traveller's perspective, geographic proximity would usually best the other bases (trying to avoid using the t-word). I would group France, Benelux and the British Isles into a Western Europe group, and put Iberia, Italy, Greece and Turkey into a Mediterranean group. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your proposed groups feel pretty big to me, but also, Iberia and Italy are not that close and have to be reached through France if you travel over land. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘parts of Belgium and parts of Switzerland have French as their language. And despite being an official language in Luxembourg, only about 40% there speak French as a first language. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

And how many speak it well as a second language? And then what percentage of Spaniards or Italians speak French? I don't think you're making a strong argument against France having clearer connections with other Francophone countries, especially Belgium. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The groups are large, as is necessary if we want to keep to 7±2. Creating an Eastern Europe including Russia/Ukraine/Belarus with the Baltic and Caucasus countries would leave us with six supergroups. While Mediterranean Europe may not be geographically proximate, the countries have a fair number of other similarities. Ground Zero (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
7+2 is superseded by ttcf. "What regions best serve the reader/traveler?" is the question we should be asking and addressing. France goes well with the Low Countries, IMO. I can see a grouping of Italy, the former Yugoslav countries, Albania, Greece and Turkey. I don't really see Iberia being part of that, as it's contiguous with France. If Iberia really isn't a viable region (and I'm really unconvinced it isn't), it could be attached to France. But, really, what's the problem with a clearly-defined geographic/cultural/historical region in which one country is predominant? Iberia seems like an obvious region to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The problem with Iberia is that it's an extra level in the hierarchy that doesn't provide much benefit to the traveler. Powers (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to be a naysayer, but what is this specific purpose of this exercise? Are we going to help anyone by changing the current structure?
The feeling that 'hey, these countries totally should belong together in my own personal understanding of Europe' isn't actually reason enough. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think it's primarily aesthetic, reducing the number of standalone countries in the list of Continental Sections. Making the list shorter also has advantages for comprehensibility of the division. Powers (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I do think that a better organization of countries would look better, and therefore improve the user experience, i.e., it would best serve the traveller, or else I wouldn't argue for it. And I am sure that ttcf motivated the Latin Europe proposal even though I disagree with that viewpoint. I am a little fed up with people playing ttcf as a trump card as if only they know what serves travellers best. But I don't think that were going to get consensus on this, so we should problem accept things as they are and move on. Ground Zero (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I guess the use case eludes me. I just don't see why someone's experience navigating the current "Europe > Iberia > Spain" would be improved by "Europe > Latin Europe > Spain". It isn't citing ttcf to ask what the actual benefit would be. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ground Zero, I never argued that only I know what serves travelers best. Please assume good faith and avoid straw man arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ikan, re-reading your comments above, I see that you didn't. Sorry. It was late and I was venting about other discussions where I see people doing that. I should have read more carefully before responding. Ground Zero (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's OK. Sometimes, things can get frustrating here. When that happens, it can be good to take a break and do something else for a while before coming back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Which breadcrumb is more useful depends on what we can tell in the continental section article that is not better (or redundantly) told in the individual country articles, and on whether travellers want to get an overview of the region covered. The latter is partly a question of whether the region is treated as a single destination by the traveller, but including more countries is no problem as long as the information is relevant for the "destination region" (and the country list does not become too long).
In some cases, such as the Benelux, we also want to have articles on country groups that are commonly treated as an entity. If lumping Benelux together with France we'd be forced to tell about the entity in the continental section article (where it is irrelevant for those not specifically going there) or in all the country articles (creating redundancy).
--LPfi (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, there proposal has some support, but not broad enough to make the change. However, with the current situation in Catalonia (and possible subsequent events), there is a high probability that the map of Europe will change soon. Let us keep status quo (with Latin Europe as an extra-hierarchical region), and re-evaluate in a year or so. /Yvwv (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think one of the reasons why such proposals are now made more commonly than they once were is that more people look at our region articles and try to improve them. And in some cases they think the best improvement would be a different regional division. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Checking in from Talk:Latin Europe to reopen this topic. What I said there: IMO this article's point is to explore from the traveller's POV the contiguous westernmost portion of Europe, that, by historical chance, today is populated by speakers of Latin-derived languages. This is a geographical, not linguistic, distinction. This is about a chunk of Europe to which Romania belongs linguistically but not geographically; thus, Romania is included in the Balkans article to which, geographically, it belongs. However, our Romanian and Moldovan readers have a point, a big one, of feeling offended by being excluded from "Latin Europe", and are likely to go on perpetually making edits for its inclusion. Readers born and raised in the Francophone chunks of Belgium and Switzerland, forever Latin since the Roman Empire times, have every reason for this same complaint. This name, instead of being an elegant solution to Wikivoyage, is actually very problematic. I support a name change, to a purely geographical determination, "southwestern Europe" or whatever term on which consensus is achieved. Ibaman (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Agree. Not a good name, and I don't think it is a common way to refer to these countries. And I still think it is too big a region. I think the Iberian penninsula (incl the islands and Andorra) should be a separate region. Erik den yngre (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Southwestern Europe works fine.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I support moving Southwestern Europe into the geographical hierarchy. Southwestern Europe is a perfect solution to group the orphaned countries of France, Italy, Malta and Monaco with the four countries of Iberia. The Iberia article should be either converted into an extraregion or be redirected to Southwestern Europe. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Do we have consensus for including Southwestern Europe within the geographic hierarchy? /Yvwv (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Where do you see a consensus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd also say nay for such a region. There's already quite a lot to see in both France and Italy alone – I don't see an issue with the microstates here – the only microstate that's directly breadcrumbed right under Europe is Monaco, but there's good argument for categorising it under Alpes-Maritimes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there is, or separately under Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, which I think I would favor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with either categorising it under the department article or under the official region article. From a travel perspective, Monaco is like another department of France, IMO. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Monaco is a city-state, and visiting it is like visiting another city on the Riviera. A particularly glitzy one, but just another city all the same. I'd list it as a bonus eighth city at Provence-Alpes-Côte_d'Azur#Cities.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I was quite busy improving articles related to West Bengal since my comment on Southwestern Europe. While I'm now neutral on Southwestern Europe, I will support crumbing Monaco into France. Although I may never go to the continent, I have some interests on Europe. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
If there's a consensus to do so, I may crumb Monaco into the relevant region of France. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin Europe revisited

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems that neither Catalonia nor any other entity in Europe will become functionally independent within the immediate future. Europe has seven articles about continental sections. Each of them, with the current article length by bytes: Balkans (15,747), Baltic states (14,111), Benelux (12,818), Britain and Ireland (28,191), Caucasus (19,188), Central Europe (29,848) and Nordic countries (72,575). The Latin Europe article is currently 21,239 bytes long. /Yvwv (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • The current division of Europe works fine as a way to organize information, but I still think there is some imbalance in the hierarchy: Some regions are very big, others small. France, Spain and Italy are the worlds top destinations measured in number of visitors. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
So what's being argued here? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regional overhaul

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

I suggest that we make a few changes to the current regional division of Europe. First, I think that we should merge the purple residual category of Greece, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus and Turkey into the Balkans. Greece and Thrace are geographically, historically and culturally part of the Balkans, whether they like it or not. And as (Northern) Cyprus must go into some region the obvious candidate is that it joins Greece and Turkey into the Balkans. (Perhaps the Asian part of Turkey can be shaded on the map to emphasize that it is not part of the Balkans or Europe). Secondly, I think that we should create an "Eastern Europe"/"Ruthenia" region-article for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This region would be dominated by Russia, but on the bright side it really makes sense as a region, with mutually intelligible languages, a common history in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, a common cuisine, and all of them being neighbors found outside of Schengen. Thirdly, I strongly support making Latin Europe part of our regional breakdown. For tourists interested in the Mediterranean cuisine, beaches and classical architecture, they are natural substitutes. In the words of the article lede: "For some non-Europeans or Britons, the idea to 'do Europe' might be limited to these countries only." I'm sure that many of our readers think in these terms, and giving the Latin Europe article a more prominent place would help them to sift the information more easily.

There are also two more general reasons for this set of proposals. First, they would reduce the number of regions in Europe from 12 to 9. According to our own 7 2 policy, which is based on sound reasoning, we ought to avoid overly long lists. Europe is one of our most exposed articles, and will act as an exemplar for other regions, so it is especially important for us to follow this policy here. Secondly, the new breakdown would ensure that no countries are listed immediately below continent level, while all countries are listed two steps below continent level. (That all belong to one region, but none to more than one region). Currently some countries are listed immediately below continent level while others are not. Some of these are major countries considered regions in their own right (like France), while others are smaller countries which are currently not covered in any region articles (like Belarus and Cyprus). This inconsistency and asymmetry strike me as very intuitively unappealing. It weirdly puts France and Cyprus "on par" with Central Europe in our hierarchy. I'm convinced that a symmetrical and consistent breakdown would make a more organized and more thought ought impression on our readers, and make it easier for them to find their way around our hierarchical breakdown.

The resulting breakdown would give us three huge regions (Latin Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe), three medium sized regions (Britain and Ireland, Nordic countries and Balkans) and three smaller regions (Benelux, Baltic states and Caucasia). I know that some have objected to the huge difference in size between these regions, but to me the two benefits greatly outweigh this one drawback. To some extent this problem exists with the current breakdown as well. To get around it we would have to either split Central Europe, or merge the smaller regions. I would strongly object to either solution. Splitting Central Europe would just further increase the number of regions, and as the small regions are all well-established geographical entities, and share a lot of history, cuisine and identity, it would be a huge loss for us to merge them.

I apologize in advance for opening up this Pandora's box again. MartinJacobson (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Latin Europe is my creation, and I let the article speak for itself.
Greece and Cyprus could go with the Balkans. Turkey (including North Cyprus) should be categorized with the Middle East, but be referenced as part of Europe in the Europe and Balkans articles.
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus indeed have much in common. Still, the Russia-Ukraine conflict seems far from being resolved; which means that border crossing will remain difficult for visitors, de facto and de jure borders might change, and disputed entities such as Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk might or might not be functionally autonomous in the future. I would say that we keep Belarus, Russia and Ukraine directly below Europe, without grouping them into a region. Also, we have not settled the issue of Russian Asia. While Russia could still be described as a country in the Europe and Asia articles, the Russian regions east of the Urals could be organized with North Asia. /Yvwv (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
My proposal is this. It would reduce the region list to nine items. The Iberia article would be merged with Latin Europe.
Latin Europe is a good idea. When it comes to Balkan, it already has so many countries that it shouldn't get more of them. Instead Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Caucasus could form a Southeastern Europe article. Central Europe and the Nordic countries are optimal as they are now. The Baltic countries could, together with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus form an Eastern Europe article, but they could also stay as they are. Likewise the British isles and Benelux could form a Western Europe article or they could stay as they are. These are my 2 cents. Ypsilon (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Visiting Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania is very different from visiting Russia and Belarus, when it comes to immigration laws, money handling, transportation, and contact with police and other authorities. There is no practical reason to merge them into a region; it would also seem as a provocation against the Baltic states' political and cultural independence. /Yvwv (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's all very true, I was just looking at the thing from a geographical point of view. Ypsilon (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't support putting Greece in the same region as the Caucasus. Of course it's true that Turkey includes much of the Caucasus, including large parts of historical Armenia, but Greece does not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I took the liberty to direct the Urals, Siberia and the Russian Far East to the pseudo-article Asian Russia. They are now breadcrumbed to Asia. /Yvwv (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I made a preview of my proposal in User:Yvwv/Europe. A map by User:Wauteurz has Latin Europe marked. The Greece/Cyprus/Turkey pseudo-region needs to be recolored. /Yvwv (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ypsilon I see your point about the Balkans being too... well... Balkanized... To make matters worse I think that Slovenia should probably be moved from Central Europe to Balkans. It made sense to group it with Central Europe when it was the only former Yugoslavian state in the EU, but since Croatia also joined the Union, and is on route towards membership in the Schengen, I think that it makes more sense to list Slovenia with the other countries in former Yugoslavia. One way mitigate the problem would be to split up the way we present countries in the Balkans article, for example dividing the country list into Western (former Yugoslavia) Eastern (Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Transnistria) and Southern (Greece, Albania, Turkey and Cyprus).
Yvwv, I agree that traveling around Eastern Europe might be difficult right now, but I still believe that it makes sense to create an Eastern Europe article. They share several travel topics, like cuisine and history, but I also think that it is good, just for the sake of consistency. It looks weird to me to create region articles for all regions but one. It would also helfull for formal stuff, like petscans and article status. I guess that current policy, if strictly interpreted, would require us to make Belarus (but not e.g. Germany) usable status before making Europe guide status... MartinJacobson (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My main objection is the notable imbalance in size of these regions. Central Europe and in particular Latin Europe are huge in terms of population, diversity and destinations. Baltic states and in particular Benelux are small. So: What should be the criteria for these groupings? Geographical proximity? Similarity in terms of imigration, prices etc? Erik den yngre (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some pointers are given in Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy#Dividing geographical units. Essentially, the five guidelines it mentions is the 7 ± 2 rule, traditional definitions, political or legal definitions, geography, and language or cultural definitions. I also think that Yvwv made a nice summary in a 2017 discussion above. Regions are particularly good for cognitive information structure, itinerary theming, and easy access to generalized information. I would say that all of Latin Europe, Benelux, Baltic states, Caucasus, and Eastern Europe satisfies these criteria well.
Maybe the case could also be made for a "balance"-criteria. In particular, I agree that regions in which one sub-region entirely dominates completely tend to not work very well. A region article for "France and Monaco" would just be a duplication of France, with some occasional mention of Monaco. To some extent the Iberia region might suffer this problem. But I do not think that Latin Europe would dominate Europe to the extent that Europe would just be a duplication of Latin Europe. MartinJacobson (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure the regional division is ultimately that important, as long as it's clearly coherent, but there is a big problem with a "Latin Europe" region that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: Aren't Italy and France #1 and #2 in terms of number of tourists (even visitors, maybe?) in Europe? And then when you add Spain, which has to be in the top 10 if not higher than that, that region really dwarfs all the others in amount of traffic, doesn't it? Again, I sort of think "whatever" on this, in that to a large extent, so what if this is how Wikivoyage divides Europe into regions? Very few people are likely to do a search for most of the extra-national regions, anyway, with a few exceptions that are much more commonly thought about than "Latin Europe" (e.g., British Isles, Scandinavia, perhaps Benelux and perhaps regions like Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and maybe the Balkans). But if you're looking for problems with this proposal to redivide Europe, there you have it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps not important, with some exceptions such as the Baltics and Scandinavia. I guess few would consider "visiting Latin Europe", visitors go to France (incl Monaco) or Italy (incl Vatican), or regions/cities within these. France, Spain and Italy are on the top five list of toursists. France and Spain are #1 and #2, ahead of USA. Central Europe is similarly a not very practical frame for planning. Erik den yngre (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Turkey is already categorized with the Middle East. Just linked Eastern Thrace to European Turkey. /Yvwv (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I really think it's a mistake using political considerations in defining regions ("it's difficult to cross the border", "as a provocation against the Baltic states' political and cultural independence"). We should focus on geography as the main criterion. After all, we include Israel on the Middle East, and we don't see that as a threat against its independence from the mainly Arab and Islamic states in the region. Should we take Kosovo out if the Balkans? It's difficult to cross the border with Serbia, and Serbia refuses to recognizes its independence. Should the island of Cyprus be split between two regions? Armenia and Azerbaijan don't get along, but we lump them into one region. And what about Ireland's historical and justifiable grievance against Britain? Yet we put them in one region. Let's focus on geographic groupings. Geography is an observable fact, and leave out political considerations which are contentious and may be transitory. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Politics change, but places and areas stay. But I still think we need to look at criteria or purpose for grouping countries into regions. What is informative from the travellers' perspective? --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I generally agree, but Europe per se is a political designation. The continent is really Eurasia, and the Indian Subcontinent has a much stronger scientific justification to be treated as a different continent than Europe does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've read the entire thread, and here are my 9 (pseudo)regions:

  • Nordic countries (pretty obvious)
  • Benelux (pretty obvious)
  • Baltic states (pretty obvious)
  • Britain and Ireland (geographic grouping)
  • Latin Europe (cultural grouping, see above)
  • Central Europe (pretty common grouping)
  • Balkans (pretty common grouping)
  • Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova (for some reason I think these countries have a lot in common)
  • Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (cultural grouping)

About the size of Latin Europe and Benelux? Well, like above, Latin Europe is not nearly enough to dominate Europe, and they do share a lot of culture. Splitting this into France, Italy and Iberia would result in 11 regions. On the other hand, Benelux and the Baltic states are widely recgonized groupings and I don't think it will make much sense if we merge these. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 09:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The region formerly known as Latin Europe is now named Southwestern Europe, and has been improved during the last few days. /Yvwv (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I support making Southwestern Europe part of the hierarchy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Scroll up for previous objections, but I'll quote myself here: 'Aren't Italy and France #1 and #2 in terms of number of tourists (even visitors, maybe?) in Europe? And then when you add Spain, which has to be in the top 10 if not higher than that, that region really dwarfs all the others in amount of traffic, doesn't it? Again, I sort of think "whatever" on this, in that to a large extent, so what if this is how Wikivoyage divides Europe into regions? Very few people are likely to do a search for most of the extra-national regions, anyway, with a few exceptions that are much more commonly thought about than "Latin Europe" (e.g., British Isles, Scandinavia, perhaps Benelux and perhaps regions like Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and maybe the Balkans). But if you're looking for problems with this proposal to redivide Europe, there you have it.' I repeat, I don't see the advantage in changing things from the existing setup of having one region centered around France, another around Italy and a third for Iberia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

East Slavic nations

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are yet to be included with a continental section. They have a common linguistic and cultural heritage, and would be reasonable to describe collectively. Disputed territories within the same cultural sphere include Transnistria, Crimea and Donbass. There is no clear name for this region; but East Slavic nations could do. /Yvwv (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is wrong with Eastern Europe, which covers Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, now? What would be the advantage to travellers of changing the name? Ground Zero (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the current division seems OK to me. If we could consider changing anything, it might possibly be to move Transnistria from Balkans to Eastern Europe, but that hardly seems essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Currently Eastern Europe is a redirect to Europe, though. Should we turn it into a continental section article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I didn't realize that. Yes, I think we should, though with the caveat that during the Cold War, "Eastern Europe" was generally synonymous with the Warsaw Pact countries, and that has to be mentioned in the "Understand" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
After the break-up of the east bloc and Soviet union around 1990 countries like Hungary and Czech republic tried to distance themselves from the old "East Europe" concept. But I guess for the younger generation east europe is no more associated with Warsaw pact or communist Europe. I am not sure if "East Slavic" is good. Russia is of course dominated by russians and the russian language, but only 70-80 % of the population is russian and there are lots minority languages with an official status. I thin "Eastern Europe" is the best, even if that means "Central Europe" has been shifted somewhat east (perhaps fair given that the geographic centre of Europe is presumably somewhere in Belarus or Lithuania....). Erik den yngre (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Eastern Europe would be a better name than focusing on the Slavic element. But practically speaking wouldn't the content of this hypothetical region mostly amount to "Russia +", given the country's overwhelming size and dominance? I don't think we necessarily need this article, especially if it would largely duplicate content from the country articles. Furthermore, how realistic is it to visit Russia and Ukraine on a single trip? I believe Russia and Belarus have open borders with one another (though perhaps not for foreigners), but Russia and Ukraine are hardly bosom buddies at the moment, and most of their mutual border is either a war zone or under some other tension (e.g. Crimea).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Good points. A separate article is not needed I guess, the area is too big to be considered as one destination. Belarus is more or less an appendix to Russia, visiting Minsk and Moscow on the same trip is perhaps natural. Erik den yngre (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Russia (without Crimea) has 142 million inhabitants. The remainder of the region (Crimea, Ukraine, Donbass, Belarus, Transnistria) has around 56 million inhabitants; so while they are a minority, they are still significant. The current situation in Crimea and Donbass might create new countries or functionally autonomous territories. In that case, there would be a sufficient amount of East Slavic nations to motivate a region. /Yvwv (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Created the East Slavic nations article. It is currently extra-hierarchical. /Yvwv (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I remain skeptical of the need for this (not because of population, but the comparative size of the countries and the travel problems already mentioned), but if you can demonstrate it works as a continental region, then I'll change my view.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I dont think it is a good idea to use "slavic", better use the map than ethnicity. I recommend move to "Eastern Europe". Erik den yngre (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The fact that you are unlikely to visit two countries in the same region because of war or enmity between them doesn't make them not in the same region. Try crossing the border between Israel and Syria or Lebanon. Nevertheless, all 3 are in the Middle East. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Ikan Kekek. Also, I think Eastern Europe is a better title than East Slavic nations – the latter sounds like an ethnological categorization instead of a travel region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Revisiting

The article is now at Eastern Europe and is labeled as an extra-hierarchical region. Should we incorporate it into the hierarchy? It would include five country articles: Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Donetsk People's Republic, and Luhansk People's Republic. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

At least I think it would. The DPR and LPR articles are currently labeled as regions but breadcrumbed directly to Europe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I support moving Eastern Europe into the geographical hierarchy. "Eastern Europe" as a term and what it comprises has been contentious since the end of the Cold War, but I think there is no controversy as to whether this trio (and the associated territories) form part of it.
We can also include Moldova, another country often considered within this grouping. Its Balkan identity is always arguable, and then only culturally through the connection with Romania. The case of the unrecognized republic of Transnistria within the Balkans is even more arguable than Moldova proper. Vidimian (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
While the political situation around Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is tense, they form a distinct geographic region. There is no commonly accepted name for this region, but Eastern Europe will do. /Yvwv (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I still agree with myself on this. Yes, the region should be part of the hierarchy, obviously. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seeing support and no opposition, I'll go ahead and implement this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Eastern Mediterranean article

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion
Moved from the main talk page

I have created an outline on the Eastern Mediterranean, which consists of Cyprus, Greece, Northern Cyprus and Turkey. Feel free contribute on the article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favour of a suitable 'container' in whatever form between the articles for the continent and these countries/territories, but the regional hierarchy for Europe is generally contentious and a discussion should take place in Talk:Europe/Hierarchy before creating any articles. Vidimian (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Eastern Mediterranean also includes Syria, Lebanon, Israel and probably Egypt. Is this planned to be a region of Europe only or an extra-region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing it out. I've added a note in the article that countries that fall entirely in Asia or Africa should not belong to this region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Asia and/or Africa, as Egypt is partly in both. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The regionalisation makes sense, as we avoid orphaned countries. Finding an unbiased name for a region can be difficult, in many case we will have to do with cardinal point description such as Eastern Europe. /Yvwv (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
There's considerable overlapping with the Middle East article, and this article here might be redundant. Just for the record. Ibaman (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm also not sure whether this is a good regionalisation plan. Although I consider Turkiye to be a European country, it's considered by many to be a part of the Middle East. Cyprus the island is also another borderline case, but again, there's a lot of overlap within the Middle East. I think this is one of the few cases where orphaned countries may be better. I would support making this an extraregion, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Make it an extra-region and add the Levantine coastal countries and Egypt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
It will be much better if we group Greece as part of the Balkans, and Cyprus (island) and Turkey as part of the Middle East. It will render the Eastern Mediterranean article redundant. However, since Greece is considered as separate from the Balkans and Cyprus, a EU member, is culturally closer to Europe than the Middle East, I think we should make the region as part of Europe and say that the Levantine coastal countries and Egypt are excluded. "Southeastern Europe" might be a better name for the region, then again the name is also used for the Balkans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is not just the only case in Europe where orphaned countries may be better. France, Italy, Malta, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City are also orphaned countries and I would support keeping these as orphans, unless if you consider France and Iberia or Southwestern Europe. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
France and Italy are countries with large populations that are huge draws for tourists. Malta is linked to Europe directly (maybe a mistake), Monaco is, too (I think that's a mistake and it should be treated for tourism purposes as part of France), San Marino is treated as part of Italy, and Vatican City is treated as a neighborhood in Rome, which it is. I think it might make more sense to group Malta with Italy, so as to create an "Italy and nearby small nations" article whose name we could tweak. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would opt for Italian Peninsula for such region. On the other hand, I have agreed, for now, that the Eastern Mediterranean be converted into an extraregion and four oraphaned countries and territories in Southeastern Europe be kept as such, until a better collective name can be found. I am now opposing to combine these with the Balkans to become "Southeastern Europe" as the number of countries and territories in the Balkans is already high. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd go along with Italian Peninsula as a name if a consensus develops, but it's problematic because Italy includes islands and Malta is only islands. I'm not sure about your Southeastern Europe idea, because Greece and Turkey are individually such magnets for visitors. Also, what countries would be included? Croatia may be a Balkan country, but isn't it more central than southern or eastern Europe? If we do create a Southeastern Europe article, I think we should not include Croatia in it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think the proper name for the Italy+ region article we're discussing is "Italy and environs," but this guide hasn't used such names so far. And what name would France + Monaco have? I think merely "France," with Monaco treated as a separate region simply because it's its own principality, although it's really part of the Cote d'Azur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Now that the Eastern Mediterranean is an extraregion, it is even more redundant since it significantly overlaps with the Levant.
I would really like to have an article where the breadcrumbs for Greece and Cyprus (and Northern Cyprus) could link to, an article which should also have Turkey in it (with its breadcrumb linking or not, like the case of Russia in Asia, or Egypt in the Middle East). Expanding the Balkans into "Southeastern Europe" might be the best fit, but then there are the points Ikan put forward.
As for Malta, the "Italian Peninsula" isn't really appropriate in my opinion, since a "peninsula", by definition, does not include the islands such as Malta. And it isn't "Italian" either (although heavily connected). Vidimian (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think we should convert the Southwestern Europe from an extraregion, rather than expanding the Italian Peninsula article. I'll merge the Eastern Mediterranean to the Levant soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Look up the page to see my previous objections to a region that would encompass Italy, Iberia and France - each of those countries is a tremendous draw for tourists, so I doubt it's most helpful to travelers to include all three in the same reason, or even two of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't like the idea of an Italy+ article. Its content wouldn't be much different from Italy, with a handful of token nods to the small countries. You can't give to Malta, the Vatican or San Marino equal weight in a region article as to a country the size of Italy, nor should you. In fact, I'd say all of these proposed extra layers to the hierarchy, just for the sake of having them as it seems, are unnecessary. I wouldn't mind breadcrumbing Monaco under Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, as without your own yacht (super or otherwise) there's really no way into the country without passing through France somehow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Me too – I don't think an Italian Peninsula article is useful. San Marino and the Vatican City are just enclaved microstates that are already categorised under Italy, where it makes sense (as there's no way you can enter either of the two without passing through Italy). That leaves just Malta and Italy itself, and regions with just two subregions are discouraged on Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've merged Italian Peninsula to Italy to avoid further controversy with this region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've merged the Eastern Mediterranean article to the Levant, effectively cancelling my proposal to group the four oraphaned countries in Southeastern Europe. Since this, I won't support any proposal to group any orphaned country in Europe other than the Southwestern Europe proposal, which looks promising to me. Besides, I will support the breadcrumb of Monaco into France. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply