@KeesNBNL1969: Not sure we nend 8 new regions yet for the existing 13 towns in this region. Suggest a discussion before splinting this article. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

recommend first creating city articles with good content first under this region before creating the regions. Region structure is to help the reader not reflect government structures. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

None were created, so I'm merging the subregions back in. Ground Zero (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The subsections were split out again this year, but the subregions articles had little content in them and mostly repeated what is in this article, so they are of little value to the reader. I have merged them back in. If someone wants to create useful articles and transfer information out of this, I would be happy to help to the extent I can. I don't know the area, though.

Also, detailed listing of points of interest do not belong in a region article. I have moved them out to the destination articles. See wv:region article template. Ground Zero (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I tried to get the dynamic map to show the subregions, but I couldn't get the coding to work. I would be grateful if someone else would g it try. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@KeesNBNL1969:, as I explained on your talk page, restoring the subregion articles unilaterally while there is a discussion underway is edit warring. Let's agree on how to proceed on subregion articles before anything more is done. If you are going to add more content to these articles, it makes sense to keep them. As they are now, they are not useful for travellers and should be removed.

1. Long lists of cities that we don't have articles for (red links) are not useful. They should be removed.
2. Detailed listings of points of interest do not belong in region articles. They go in destination articles (city or park articles). See wv:region article template.
3. Listings in destination articles should not be repeated in subregion articles.

Also @Traveler100:. Ground Zero (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@KeesNBNL1969: Please participate in this discussion. Continuing to make unilateral edits to these articles could lead to you being blocked from editing in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Given how few bluelinks there are right now, I oppose creating subregions. //shb (t | c | m) 11:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the subregions again. I would like to see subregion articles created, but only if they have travel information for readers, not if they are just lists of places. Ground Zero (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have my own gripes with these subdivisions. They are very loose interpretations of historic regions, mixed with current-day regions. That will always create a whole lot of overlap and ambiguity. For example, the historic region Meierij van 's-Hertogenbosch included Kempen(land) and Peel(land) as two of its subdivisions. Furthermore, the Meierij existed alongside the independent duchies of Cuijk, Boxmeer, Gemert and Ravenstein, all of which have 'just' been merged into the Peel.

Add to that that eight subregions is just a lot of subregions. North Brabant is roughly the same size and has roughly the same population as Gelderland, which does just fine having half as many subdivisions. I don't know Brabant well enough to suggest a better alternative, but this one definitely needs a lot of work.

I do have plans to add to North Brabant myself, for which I was going to start with the Brabantse Wal (≈ Brabant Moraine). In terms of this division, that's a larger Markiezaat (including Willemstad (Netherlands) and Roosendaal. From there, I would personally merge Heusden en Altena, Langstraat and the remaining part of Westhoek into Hollands Brabant (≈ Hollandic Brabant), doing away with a quarter of these divisions already. ― Wauteurz (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply