Talk:Luxembourg

Formatting and language conventions For articles about Luxembourg, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00. Please show prices in this format: €100 and not EUR 100, 100 euro or 100€. Please use British spelling (colour, travelled, centre, realise, analogue, programme, defence).

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Luxembourg/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

---

Please follow MoS guidelines

Unless and until our external links guidelines are changed, please don't add restaurant guides to this page. --(WT-en) Evan 13:41, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Multilingualism

According to WP, Luxembourg shows nearly 100% trilinguilism (German, French and Luxembourghish). Can someone confirm this? User:(WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage

I don't see WP claiming that -- if anything, it states that some 300k people speak Lëtzebuergesch worldwide, out of 480,222 Luxembourg citizens. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:55, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

By finishing their elementary studies in Luxembourg, everybody commands to a near-native level of German and also to French 100% sufficient to administer. Luxemburgish is spoken in every native family, it is maybe closest to German. As for immigrants, most children are able to converse in Luxemburgish, however the level of their skills may vary. Their parents rarely learn to speak it, as French (especially with some German knowledge) is more than enough to make themselves understood. Luxemburgers however regard it disrespectful or simply overly lax if foreigners do not even make an attempt to learn the national language. As for the "Talk" section. When I was there, I saw a number of road signs and other things written in German such as "einfaedeln lassen" or "Abstand beachten", nonetheless is the majority in French. Also in McDonald's, the menu is in German, but the cashiers are not likely to understand it in any other language than French (seldom English), as in most of the cases they are immigrants from former French colonies. Or at least that is what I experienced. I would be happy if someone local took a look at this section, because as far as I know, this topic is much more difficult and wants a more profound insight, when which langugae is to speak. I received strange looks when said something in the inappropriate language. They have stict rules (or rather habits) when how to speak. Many thanks, (WT-en) Ferike333 15:40, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

hotels.lu

I've tentatively restored hotels.lu -- it's not just an aggregator, but the official site of Luxembourg's independent hotel association ("Sélection des Hôtels-Restaurants indépendants du Grand Duché de Luxembourg Hotels.lu a.s.b.l."). Many of the smaller hotels listed within do not have homepages and do not show up in normal hotel booking engines, while the large chain hotels which do show up elsewhere (Hilton etc) are missing from hotels.lu. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Get in entry requirements

In case anyone wants to know the source of my edits to include information about the visa exemption for 'Annex II' nationals to work during their 90 day visa-free entry, see this European Union document - . (WT-en) Yeahtravel 16:49, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Districts

How about districtifying the Luxembourg article. Luxembourg is officially divided intro three districts and we can implement the same here. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there enough content to warrant it? Small nations like Luxembourg and Qatar often don't require districting. James A ▪ talk 12:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not enough content James, but is it a good idea to create a region list such as this one? --Saqib (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, potentially. Some articles do it like that. I'd get a second opinion. James A ▪ talk 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

With only 5 (blue-linked) cities and 4 ODs, I don't really think this article needs subregions (as is the case with larger European nations such as Kosovo or Moldova). Actually, with a population of below 500,000, this would be a moderately sized city if it were elsewhere and would perfectly do with just a single article. However, the proposed breakdown may be posted directly here so it can provide an idea if a need for regions arises in the future, when we might have many more town articles. Vidimian (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Region list added. --Saqib (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Regions

So the current region breakdown does not seem to be based on any region articles existing. Recently the article Mullerthal was created which appears to be a very useful region from a tourism standpoint (which is what our region breakdwon should be based on), any ideas for how to divide the rest of the country? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the Mullerthal region is no more than a fancy name for the Echternach Canton, we could, in theory, include all 12 districs/cantons (See Wikipedia for reference). These would then have to be listed under the three existing regions (Diekirch-, Gevenmacher- and Luxembourg District) This would give:

1. Diekirch District:
   • Clerveaux Canton (2)
   • Diekirch Canton(3)
   • Redange Canton (9)
   • Vianden Canton (11)
   • Wiltz Canton (12)
2. Grevenmacher District:
   • Mullerthal (4)
   • Grevenmacher Canton (6)
   • Remich Canton (10)
3. Luxembourg District:
   • Capellen Canton (1)
   • Esch-sur-Alzette Canton (5)
   • Luxembourg Canton (7)
   • Mersch Canton (8)

There is one (quite major) problem with this though: Coverage of Luxembourg (the country) on Wikivoyage. Simply put: It is poor. I don't think we should make these regions if these regions get little information on the pages. There may be a way of solving this though. If Projects are still actively maintained, then perhaps a Luxembourg Expedition (or a project alike) can be started. We'll get further if there are more of us, and an expedition project may be the thing we need to give the Luxembourg articles some of the love and care they need.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What about making Mullerthal a "city" (there is some precedent for consolidating several rural destinations into one city article) and not (yet) subdivide Luxembourg by region? We can revisit any proposal to do so once we get to above and beyond ~15 "cities" in Luxembourg. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I'll see what I can contribute to this matter using the power of the internet. The previous times I've visited Luxembourg (I've been to both Diekirch- and Luxembourg District before going to Mullerthal earlier this month) were times at which I was too little to give anything about keeping folders or even appreciating the regions. But I'll see what I can do, and I would encourage other users to do the same.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hold on.. I agree that we need to consider carefully if and how to divide Luxembourg, but turning Mullerthal into a city article has some consequences. The article now holds listings for Echternach, which has a (linked) article of its own. That's not right. Mullerthal is a very well established region, famous for its natural beauty and hiking routes. It is promoted as such for touristic purposes and widely known as Little Switzerland in surrounding countries. The practice of consolidating rural destination in one city article is well established for small places with insufficient sights or facilities to fill articles, but Mulllerthal is a slightly different matter. This is a highly touristic area, full of places to see, stay and eat. Currently, the "get in" information and over half the listings in the Mullerthal article are in Echternach. If you want to go for a consolidated article, you'll have to merge the information and make sure that the get in and other information does not only refer to Echternach. However, it would be strange to have individual articles for, say, Remich or Clervaux, but not for Echternach. Alternatively, the Echternach information could stay in the Echternach article and is clearly linked from the Mullerthal article, which then only cover the rest of the region. I don't think it can be both at ones. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There is little chance we could beef up our coverage of Luxembourg in a short time. I do not think the current arrangement is a problem, I would rather we don't touch it. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, then new regions for Luxembourg (whenever they'd be created) should fit the following requirements:

• Mullerthal is one of the regions (making it a sub-region of Grevenmacher would be useless, most listings would be located in the Mullerthal).
• 15+ "cities" listed for Luxembourg.

Let me cut to the case here: One of the folders I've got about Luxembourg in general is an overview of locations and everything they have to offer. It divided Luxembourg as follows (using the map above):

1. Luxembourg region: 1, 7, 8, 9.
2. The Luxembourgian Ardennes: 2, 3, 11, 12.
3. Mullerthal: 4
4. Moselle region: 6, 10
5. Land of the red earth: 5

Alternatively the Land of the red earth could be included in the Luxembourg region. Though leaving it as a region of its own could be a good option seen that it has a history in mining, and the Luxembourg region does not. I'm currently working on removing the redlinks that are present in the article right now. Once all cities are included we'll have a total of 12 cities (counting Mullerthal as a region here). I have sufficient information (half of an A4 paper sheet or more) for the following, not yet existing redlinks per region (behind them the articles in that region existing right now):

• Luxembourg Region: Mersch | Luxembourg City
• Ardennes: Bourscheid, Esch-sur-Sûre, Wiltz | Diekirch, Clervaux, Ettelbruck, Vianden
• Mullerthal: Beaufort, Berdorf, Larochette, Rosport | Echternach
• Moselle: Mondorf-les-Bains | Grevenmacher, Mertert, Schengen
• Land of the red earth: Differdange, Dudelange | Esch-sur-Alzette

These pages would get us to 23 city/town articles for Luxembourg. None of the regions have 7+ listings either. Of course we don't have to implement these right now, but they're good regions to devide Luxembourg into if you'd ask me. I'd like to know what you (more experienced WV users) think about this.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Regions the Second

Alright, some days have passed since the past discussion on regions, and I can report that the progress made was bigger than what I expected. Right now (August 20th 2016, 15:30 UTC) we're down to a total of 18 cities, two of which are listed below Mullerthal, and the rest is listed below Luxembourg. Since I have planned at least 5 more pages, here's my final proposal for regions:

Luxembourg Region	Luxembourg City, Mersch	Colmar-Berg 1
Luxembourgian Ardennes	Clervaux, Diekirch, Esch-sur-Sûre, Ettelbruck, Vianden	Bourscheid, Wiltz
Mullerthal	Beaufort, Echternach	Berfort, Consdorf, Larochette 2, Rosport
Moselle	Grevenmacher, Mertert, Mondorf-les-Bains, Remich, Schengen
Land of the Red Rocks 3	Differdange, Dudelange, Esch-sur-Alzette, Pétange

Notes

1. Colmar-Berg may end up being integrated into Ettelbruck or become a general listing. The main attraction (the castle) is closed to tourists and listing it may not have much of a use.
2. Larochette is outside of the Echternach Canton (current borders for Mullerthal). Though VisitLuxembourg.com includes it in the Mullerthal region.
3. I've started work on a Land of the Red Rocks article here.

The final layout and current layout can be found on an Userpage of mine.

---

In short, these are the same regions that the official tourist website for Luxembourg lists. I couldn't find a map on commons that lists the exact same regions, but linking to the website and hovering your mouse over the region names should do for now. The big plus of this layout is having the regions with common history (esp. LotRR) grouped together. None of the regions have over 7 pages this way, while keeping with the current three regions, will make the Grevenmacher District (and perhaps the Land of the Red Rocks too) too big on the long term.

Either way, I'd like to get some feedback from you all. If you have any better suggestions, then please, leave them below for us all to discuss.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You will more or less be on your own engaging in this. Please double-check with yourself if you have the stamina to deliver articles of at least reasonable quality, without resorting to laundry-listing or repetition, on each of the regions you proposed, create or pester somebody effectively to create maps and maintain all that so that it is reasonably up-to-date. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS. I looked into what you are doing in your userspace, and I have two comments. One is that all POIs (Eat, Sleep, See etc.) should go to bottom-level articles, i.e. "cities". Second is that destinations with no "Sleep" listings should not exist per policy, so if in a region only one or two towns have hotels, then reconsider whether to create articles for all townships in the region, or rather treat the region as a bottom-level article.

Thanks for the reply and feedback, PrinceGloria. I am totally fine with doing this on my own - that's mostly how we got here anyway. I'll definitely put the development of Luxembourg articles on hold if it gets in the way of my study or just gets too much for me in general, don't worry about that. As for maps, however, I've got a question: How can I find someone that can create the region maps for me? Is there any sort of category or list of users that may be willing to create maps for the Luxembourg articles? At the moment I haven't got a clue as to what I should do to even find someone willing to help me out with these maps or, as to what I should do and use to create one myself.

As for the userspace regions articles and their POI-problems, I'll take North Holland as a guide as to how to create such an article, correct me if there's anything wrong with doing that. As for the No-Sleep-Articles such as Differdange: I could subdevide Differdange in its commune, but that brings another problem: Differdange is a commune of itself. Differdange is part of the Esch-sur-Alzette canton, which is what I defined as the Land of the Red Rocks. I'll see what the best option for this problem is.

I'll check the ANWB (the Dutch Body of Federal Roads) their camping guide, they have a quite extensive list of Luxembourgian campsites. There aren't any hotels in Differdange, that I know for sure, but I am not 100% positive on it having no campsites either. If it has no sleep listings at all, then I may as well merge it with Pétange.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

1. . This is what I meant - it's a big endavour, you are on your own and once RL kicks in, this stands a high chance of getting abandoned halfway.
2. . You are a fairly new editor which, with all due respect, doesn't help once you are on your own
3. . North Holland is not a very good example to follow, most of its subregions are horribly underdeveloped.

Please consider working on some bottom-level destination articles first before trying to redevelop the entire country coverage, even if for a country as small as Luxembourg. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, understood. Would it be a solution to start a Luxembourg Expedition? I've suggested it before but got no solid answer to it. This would consist of defining the regions as well as making articles for the cities and towns that need them. It doesn't have to be a large scale expedition, which, seen the size of Luxembourg, would be quite unnecessary. Starting such an expedition doesn't seem like a bad idea to be because after all there's the Dutch saying "More hands make for lighter work".
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Expeditions don't help much. What does is slowly working on the articles of your interest and find that as you add original content, Google notices and sends in more and more readers, some of whom feel the urge to contribute and sometimes, voila, you have a team! PrinceGloria (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS. I prefer the Dutch sayings that have peanut butter in them :D

I'll continue to work on articles then. I'd love to see people help on them in the long run. I've updated my planned regions and articles. I'll go back to editing Gelderland articles sometime soon, giving new editors for Luxembourg some time to join in and edit. That seems like it would be the better option here. If nothing happens on the long term (say, half a year or so), then I'll have to fix the regions myself.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PS.: If nothing ends up happening, then we can use the Dutch sayings involving not just peanut butter, but peanut cheese (totally the same). If that happens, then we can all say "Helaas, pindakaas" together. :)

The dialect map

The image this is about

So I inserted a map of the Moselfränkisch dialect continuum which was removed by a single edit IP address. I think it is interesting to know that the language spoken in Luxembourg is closely related to the language traditionally spoken outside its borders, but I don't want to fight over this. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite interesting to me, but I'm unsure how relevant it is for most travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a Wikipedia related information, not travel. I feel when it comes to language and dialect there is a great tendency to completely over-explain a very nuanced subject poorly. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Abolition of districts

According to User:Math1985, districts have been formally abolished. However, that doesn't mean using their former shapes is unhelpful for the traveller, so I reverted the deletion of the Wikivoyage regions and put some text into the past tense as a stopgap measure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Are the districts now or were they ever of much use to travelers? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Having worked a lot on the Luxembourgian articles, I can say that I've mostly ignored them (aside from the is a city/town/commune in the ~ district intro lines). Technically the country article should be subdevided (as per 7+2) sometime soon, as there are 19 articles with one of them marked for a merge. Including the redlinked Luxembourgian pages we'd end up with roughly 22 articles. Dividing them into the Diekirch/Ardennes, Grevenmacher and Luxembourg districts might be the best options, though having Mullerthal as another region in this line-up is plausible. Dividing the currently existing articles results in 6 (Diekirch), 5 (Grevenmacher), 4 (Mullerthal) and 4 (Luxembourg) articles per region. Using the twelve cantons as a means of division isn't useful if you'd ask me, as we would end up with many single-destination regions with most others having perhaps two city level articles at best.

Please note that Larochette is counted to be part Mullerthal though officially being the Luxembourg district.

To answer your question, @Hobbitschuster: the districts aren't of use to the traveler in their current use, though Luxembourg should be subdivided as per WV standards, and the districts seem to me to be the best means of achieving that.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just checking.. so there are no current district articles right? Just a grouping of articles on the main article?

From my POV, it looks fine how it is... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from Mullerthal (which, honestly, might be better of as a bottom-level article), there are no further subdivisions on Wikivoyage at the moment. If you need the overview, I have the category tree here.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

---

As far as I'm understand, there are two questions:

1. Which districts to use in the list on the country page
2. Whether or not to make district pages

For the question which districts to list: we currently use the three abolished administrative districts. They are not a great way of dividing the country: the division is rather arbitrary, and the districts generally lack a common character. They also did not have an administrative function in practice. Add to that the fact that the government quietly abandoned them.

The division in regions used by the tourist office, as provided by Wauteurz, seem very natural to me. These regions have a common character and history, which is useful for tourists to know. Some of the regions, in particular Mullerthal, are even known as tourist destinations in their own right.

So I'd propose to use this division on the country page.

For the second question, whether to make district pages, it seems we have three options:

1. No district pages
2. District pages with cities as children - it seems like Wauteurz has implemented this now
3. District pages as cities (with no children)

In principle, we could also answer this question for different regions.

What are the (dis)advantages of each?

I'm new here, so let me know if I'm missing something.

Math1985 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

1/4 @Math1985:The three districts may not be a great way to divide the country when it comes to bureaucracy, I can agree to that extend, however, when it comes to being helpful to the traveller, which as you probably are aware of, is one of our goals, it is quite the opposite. This way of dividing the country is useful to the extend that they maintain a clear overview to the average traveller that would be browsing WV. Destinations in, for example, the Grevenmacher district (including the Mullerthal in this case), are all located along the same Route National, which makes getting from Schengen to Echternach easy as long as the traveller has access to a car or bus service. For as far as I can tell, this isn't quite the case in the Luxembourgian Ardennes (Diekirch district). Instead, here we define the region by the terrain and history, which are for as far as I can tell the main attractions pulling in visitors to castles, museums, as well as hikers and (off-road) cyclists. The Luxembourg district combines the more urban regions with the more developed nightlife due to the young population in the bigger (university)cities such as Luxembourg and Esch-sur-Alzette, as well as industrial heritage on the side. Whether or not the government likes this way of dividing the country is not of use to us, nor the traveller, unless it directly limits their ability to visit for example Vianden whilst staying in Mondorf-les-Bains.

@Wauteurz:No, I believe the exact opposite, I think the three former regions are unsuitable from a tourist viewpoint. The main difference between the three former districts and the five tourist regions are:

1) the Luxembourg-City area (mainly services and banking industry) and the Terre Rouge mining region are grouped together as district, while they have a totally different culture and will not likely be visited together; and

2) The Mullerthal and Moselle region are grouped together; again, they are very different regions in terms of what tourists can expect there.Math1985 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

1) I could be in favor of having five instead of three regions. Mullerthal is already its own proper region with four sub-pages. However, this does mean that we will have a single bottom-level region (Land of the Red Rocks). There isn't anything wrong with that, really, but from my point of view it gives a bit of an odd impression: Four proper regions and one bottom-level region. I understand where you're coming from, and right now I am conflicted about what has the highest priority; usable divisions or useful divisions.

2) Yes, the Mullerthal and Moselle are grouped together in the three-way division. Since the Mullerthal is already a proper region in the current hierarchy, I would refrain from changing this.

As of right now I am looking for a four-way division; Diekirch, Moselle, Mullerthal and Luxembourg. I'd like to see some more people join the discussion. I'll most likely summarise this discussion thus far and post it in a subheading below, having the regular voting system kick in (oppose, support or comment). This change isn't very urgent, but as soon as I've got all the articles to usable or higher is when I'd like to focus on dividing the country, though this may be closer than seems to me. I highly encourage hierarchy change for Luxembourg, which is why I'll summarise the discussion later today.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

2/4 As for the district pages, you note three options:
1) No districts: Though this is the current situation, Wikivoyage guidelines oppose it. I've previously made attempts to get this guideline put into practice, though that hasn't yet given any results. I aim to put this into practice when I've completed my current attempts to enhance Luxembourgian bottom-level articles. Anyway, the twenty or so bottom-level articles are surpassing the norm thrice. Dividing them must happen.

2) District pages with cities as children: This is generally how Wikivoyage is meant to be developed. Unless other ways are more useful to the traveller (for example; Land of the Red Rocks. You can see how it came to be at Talk:Differdange#Merger). I hope on doing the same for Mertert, Grevenmacher and Wasserbillig (Talk:Mertert#Merger), and perhaps Mullerthal should be reduced to this as well to keep overview, but that is a different subject in itself.

3) District pages at bottom-level regions: I interpret this as having the new division implemented into Wikivoyage as city articles. This is a wrong mindset since our aim is to cover cities at the bottom level. Technically, this isn't wrong either. Land of the Red Rocks covers the fifth Canton (Esch-Uelzecht). This has been done to make the region, filled with cities, often bordering each other directly, more useful to the traveller, which we recon, will most likely stay in one city, and visit attractions not only there. Someone staying in Esch, might for example take a train to Pétange and take a heritage train to Fond-de-Gras or take the bus or car to Rumelange to visit the Musée National des Mines. Having all of these cities and communes independently listed makes it to where the traveller cannot see that Rumelange is fairly close to Esch, rendering them unaware of the town and what it has to offer. Since our goal is to cover cities, not districts, redirects from Differdange, Dudelange, Pétange, Esch and so forth have been made to the LotRR. There currently are some empty gaps, mostly in the Diekirch district, but these may pass. Sometimes there simply are places that are deemed dull and not worth visiting by tourists. We do not waste their time to cover the places they will not visit, instead we focus their attention on what they should and will visit.

The only real option here is #2, as it describes our guidelines, our manual of style.

This is not really clear to me. You say #2 is the only option, but it seems for Land of the Red Rocks you seem to have chosen solution #3. Will you use this solution only for this particular region?Math1985 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

LotRR came to be earlier this month when we merged the articles in the region. This we did because the cities alone don't seem to be as tourism heavy, the cities and towns there have city limits that are close to each other, making the region feel more as one big yet spacious whole. Besides, the locations here all have a common history. I wasn't the one who said that these city-style region articles have to be limited in numbers. I'll tag @Ikan Kekek: in he hope that he can clarify to you why this is. I can make my attempts, but I can't promise you that it will be entirely true.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

3/4 I am aware of the wall of text that I've just written, if you can't make sense of it, feel free to get in touch with me. I do not at all mind elaborating. Also, quick question for you: Are you a Luxembourgian citizen by any chance? If so, your help is much appreciated.

I'm Dutch like you, but I have been living in Luxembourg for 4 years.Math1985 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Still, local knowledge is much appreciated. Until now I've been the only one with insider knowledge to Luxembourg as I've spent two 20-day vacations in the country, which leaves my knowledge limited. An insider has been lacking, and your contributions will be appreciated.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

4/4 Since I focus most of my efforts here on Luxembourg, I would appreciate it a lot if you'd help me out with my current attempts, which I see you've found already. Aside from that, we were all new here at some point. Not understanding or having trouble to grasp how we work is not wrong. If you ever need some clarification, reach out so someone :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible divisions (summary)

This is a summary and poll for the discussion above.

The three districts mentioned in the article have been abolished by the Luxembourgian government. The question we ask here is: Do we wish to divide Luxembourg articles, if so, how? Below is a table with the possible districts, complete with summary, articles, etc.:

District	Alternative name	Part of	Destinations	Summary	Notes
Diekirch	Luxembourgian Ardennes	Stand-alone	Clervaux Diekirch Esch-sur-Sûre Ettelbruck Troisvierges (planned) Vianden Wiltz	Forested area with a common history in World War I (Battle of the Bulge). Many historical- and war museums throughout the region. The region's terrain is fit for hikes and off-road cycling.
Grevenmacher	Moselle District	Stand-alone	Grevenmacher Mertert (merger pending) Mondorf-les-Bains Remich Schengen Mullerthal (see below)	Wine region of Luxembourg, most cities located along the Moselle river, leaving them at arms length from Germany.
Mullerthal	Müllerthal (German), Echternacher Canton	Grevenmacher or stand-alone	Beaufort (Luxembourg) Consdorf Echternach Larochette (Mullerthal OR Luxembourg District)	As are the Ardennes, the region is filled with forested and slanted terrain, inviting visitors to hikes or off-road cycling. The region is often referred to as Luxembourg's Little Switzerland due to the similarities in terrain.	Not an official former district. Instead it is listed as a district by the Luxembourgian Tourism Office.
Luxembourg	Central Luxembourg	Stand-alone	Colmar-Berg Larochette (Mullerthal OR Luxembourg District) Luxembourg City Mersch	The formal side of Luxembourg, Luxembourg city is the main attraction, Colmar-Berg a secondary, and it ends there. The region is mostly filled with offices and banks (as stated by User:Math1985)
Land of the Red Rocks	Esch-sur-Alzette Canton	Luxembourg District or Stand-alone	Differdange Dudelange Esch-sur-Alzette Pétange	Industrial region with museums and other attractions focussing around this. The region is still used for mining, though to a lesser extend. Many of the former railroads servicing the mines have been turned into heritage railroads. The region differs a lot from the Luxembourg District	Not an official former district. Instead it is listed as a district by the Luxembourgian Tourism Office. Currently a bottom-level region article.

Five districts is plenty, and switching to the twelve cantons that officially replace the three districts leaves us with many regions with none, one or two articles each. The questions here are as follows:

1. Aside from the Luxembourgian Ardennes, Moselle District and Central Luxembourg, which of the two districts mentioned above should be included, and how should they be implemented and changed according to you? Keep the following in mind:
   • The Mullerthal region is already part of our hierarchy.
   • The Land of the Red Rocks is currently a bottom-level region article at guide status. It can be implemented as such as part of Central Luxembourg, or as a stand-alone.
2. Would you alternatively see a possibility in twelve bottom-level articles (see image) for the newly formed articles? This will most likely mean that we'll have to rework all existing articles for Luxembourg. Some articles (Land of the Red Rocks, Vianden) already fit this form. This division for tourists seems doubtful at best.

All opinions on the matter are appreciated, and I thank you in advance for yours. -- Wauteurz (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never been to Luxembourg, but I would ask what makes a compelling division for the traveller?

If you take a look at Germany (which is much larger) then you can see we only have 5 regions, and they do not follow official boundaries. It makes it easier to visit without being overwleming Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

ah but we don't have articles on Central Germany or the likes. And we do subdivide some states into rather small regions like North Hesse Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We do not try to overwhelm the WV reader with pages, that goes without saying. As for the three options above, 12 is too much of you ask me. Especially if each one of those has 0 to 2 articles. I personally would like to see 4 or 5 regions as the three are an easy way to distinguish the three sides of the country: central, remote, river -perhaps not the best summation, but you probably see what I'm getting at. Mullerthal is already a region, and I support it remaining as such. I oppose making Land of the Red Rocks a proper region article as that would most likely mean that it will lose its guide status. I couldn't care less about whether it ends up as part of Central Luxembourg or as a standalone.

Furthermore, Luxembourg is due for division as per 7+2. A choice will have to be made. I mad my stance on the matter clear: four or five districts. Perhaps I am even slightly in favor of the division the Luxembourgian Tourism Bureau uses, for continuity's sake. If people need additional info, they shouldn't start from scratch, but be able to go through the same steps (divisions) to find information about their destination(s).
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the five regions. Math1985 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Get in

A lot of the information in Get in is duplicated between the articles about the country and the city. Should we de-duplicate this information? Where would be the best place for this information to go? Math1985 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Math1985: Having some duplicate information isn't bad per se. Especially concerning traveling by plane, duplicate information is almost logical. There is one international airport that I am aware of (Luxembourg-Findel), which mostly services the city. If you were to de-duplicate this, then the country would have no get in subsection about air travel, which at a quick glance makes it seem as though the country has no airports, which isn't the case. I'd say, leave it. Feel free to check the information in the get in section using Where you can stick it.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

People headed for Luxembourg might also be flying into Hahn or maybe even some farther away airports like Brussels or Schiphol. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New website of the Luxemburgish Teqball Federation

I can't get to the website https://www.teqballluxembourg.lu/ where I live.

To anyone who can access the website, does it have a map of teq tables for playing teqball?

Thanks for answering! -- Apisite (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)