Talk:Frankfurt

I'll slowly add the museums one by one. I haven't visited many of them myself - yet. I'll of course add more detailed descriptions when and if I get around to doing that. - (WT-en) Nils Jan 8th, 2004

This article has had a great growth spurt. Nice job! --(WT-en) Evan 14:22, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

Thanks, well, it's still pretty basic. --(WT-en) Nils 22:35, Jan 10th 2004 (CET)

I just started making a few additions and minor corrections to the article. --(WT-en) Merlinemyrs 08:18, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I have them so I figured we might as well use them and show people what Frankfurt looks like. I may add more but only of specific attractions. Rearrange as you see fit. I chose 350px because I really consider anything less to be too small. -- (WT-en) Nils 2004-01-12 15:11 CET

Great pictures! One concern: on the image policy page, it says that we should use the minimum number of images necessary (bandwidth and other restraints). I'm worried that we have 4 overview shots of Frankfurt, and they're not all that different. --(WT-en) Evan 11:53, 12 Jan 2004 (EST)

A travel guide needs photos of places. Not hundreds, but definitely more than one. If it's too much you can always move them to a sub page. As for bandwidth, well, we live in the age of ADSL... and it's not like each photo is a megabyte or something. -- (WT-en) Nils 2004-01-12 19:48 CET

We can move this discussion to Project:image policy, if you'd like to see the policy changed. One of our goals is to support travellers "on the road". Heavy image usage -- especially unnecessary images -- doesn't help those users. Personally, I've been in Web cafes in Hanoi with 10 computers sharing a 56K modem... it's painful. --(WT-en) Evan 13:58, 12 Jan 2004 (EST)

Okay, let's move the image discussion there. Meanwhile, I would say keep TWO photos then. The one that is on the article now, and the general skyline photo of the high rises that was the first to be added. The two should give a good "first glance" of the city. Also, maybe resize them to 250 pixels to reduce bandwidth consumption. -- (WT-en) Nils 13:45 Jan 13th, 2004 CET

To get this article to a "final" stage, the following need to be done:

• Complete major museums' listings.
• Add information on postal offices
• Add at least some drinking places

-- Nils

Also add airport visitor terrace (I think there are also tours available)

If you correct my population numbers, you could have at least taken the effort to check the official source, the last figure they seem to have is about 650k people in Q4/2003. :-)

I copied the image of the skyline to the top of the page, because it's a bit more what people think of when thinking about Frankfurt. The aerial photograph could frankly be pretty much any city with river. I did leave the photo also in the section about the skyline - the article is getting longish, and since it's the same URL the browser will only load the image once anyway.

The subway station for the football stadium was recently renamed to "Stadium". Older travel guides (pre-2006) will likely refer to it by its older name "Sportfeld".

-- Nils

Perhaps we could include what those terms mean in english. Since im sure people would want to know roughly what they are saying, And most websites dont translate it fully.

I just deleted a quasi-extlinks section from the foot of the guide; it contained a link to http://www.stadt-frankfurt.de which maybe ought to be included elsewhere - maybe in the "Understand" section?

text that was commented out, moved from the Alt-Sachsenhausen section to here:

And even these days seem to come to an end now: When the US Army had a lot of troops stationed in Frankfurt those were the people who would mainly go to Sachsenhausen. Now as they have much reduced the number of soldiers, many of the bars and restaurants are empty most of the time and some are already closing down.

There are still some good bars, but it's not nearly as "in" as it used to be. You go there because you heard the name, not because you expect superb bars. And be sure you won't mind being surrounded by fellow tourists.

In all honesty, Alt-Sachsenhausen can be safely avoided; you won't miss out on much. There are other bars throughout the city that are more interesting than any found in Alt-Sachsenhausen. //// i commented this out, since a single opinion and does not reflect the actual situation, "Alt-Sachs" ist still well visited, of course there are 'good' and 'bad' days, relating to weather, time and maybe bank holidays

Actually, there are a couple of nice apple wine places in Alt-Sachsenhausen. I added a few and also named a few on Textorstr. I also added a small paragraph on how to order apple wine. --(WT-en) Merlinemyrs 08:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Ah, thanks for making it clear, we were all thinking that down there in the old continent all police was corrupt by default.

I went to Frankfurt in August 2008 and my travel guide, published 2008, claimed that all "municipal museums" were free on Wednesdays. However the Senckenberg, Staedel and Moderne Kunst museums all charged me full price. Did the policy change or are those museums not municipal?

I think it free after 6 p.m., in Berlin also free on Thursday after 6 p.m. ///Yoo

This expression might be clear for some native English (US-only?) speakers, but searching for it on Google leads to no explanation whatsoever. Would anyone care to replace this by proper English? For the record, Granola is a trademark in the US (it's a cereal bar), so I suppose it would be better not to use it on Wikivoyage. Besides, I may be wrong, but it sounds derogatory.

Hi! Feel free to plunge forward and change it to something good.(WT-en) Jc8136 08:02, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

I never heard about this before. Granola dropout, that's so strange...

"Frankfurt is bike-friendly, featuring an expansive network of bike lanes." Really? To me Frankfurt seems about the least bike friendly city in NW Europe. It often feels like a suicide mission. (There must a reason why so many people wear bike helmets). This is probably very dependent on what you're used to. Outside of the city center bike lanes are very sparse. In Bornheim/Nordend I know of only two. I would suggest: "The city center has a few bike lanes, but drivers are not very used to cyclists." The work on rental bikes is thorough though, thanks for that. JasperVanDenBosch (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jasper, i think Frankfurt is good for bikes compared to the size of the city. There are several cities in Germany that do way worse (but of course some are better). I think in an international comparison everyone in London would dream to have a bike lane;-) My experience in Frankfurt is that driver respect cyclists but it is dense traffic. Imho the traffic intensity is the real problem. jan (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not too familiar with Frankfurt, having only changed planes in their airport, but the new banner is clearer, so I'd be inclined to go with it for that reason, regardless of any other factor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Although I'm not a big fan of generic cityscapes, the proposed banner is clearer than the existing one, so it should be used. I can;t think of many iconic places in Frankfurt to make a banner out of, except perhaps the financial district. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I actually think the banner I made works better as a banner graphically and is a nicer (warmer and more colourful and inviting) pic, but that may only be me. This is still the same general thing, so I guess it's a matter of taste. If the rotating thing is still working, we may use both on rotation. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS. Note about "clarity" - do open both the en.voy and hebrew.voy in the browser and compare. I believe that when used as a banner at "banner resolution", the "Hebrew" banner comes across as grainy. I prefer the softer tones of the picture I used as a start for my banner.

Well, you are in a minority opinion, as both me, Ikan Kekek and Andrewssi2 think the new banner is clearer, and thus the better choice. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

3-1 is not a huge consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The current small English Wikivoyage community is nothing like the English Wikipedia community and therefore, as of 2014, discussions about banners are most likely to be decided in the present by around 4-6 community members most of the time (even though I invited the community to take part in the discussion from the Travellers' pub). Due to this fact, we would need to get used to this reality in which in the present discussions about banners are in many times most likely going to be decided by the majority opinion amongst 4-6 members rather than a clear 10 to 1. Either way, why in your opinion should the minority opinion (PrinceGloria's opinion) in this case matter more than the majority opinion (me, Ikan Kekek and Andrewssi2's opinion)? Does the official EN Wikivoyage policy support this notion that the minority opinion in this case should matter more than the majority opinion (if so please refer me to this policy). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Ikan was suggesting that PrinceGloria's opinion should win out in the end, but rather that the issue hadn't been fully resolved yet. With that said, I also like the new banner better than the old one for a number of reasons: the river is more visible, the nameplate is framed better, the skyscrapers aren't cut off at the top, and the lighting is better. The old one does have slightly smoother coloration, but it's still a dark photo with an industrial vibe and a prominent railyard, versus a bright photo with a metropolitan vibe and a prominent tree-lined river.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 05:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Thatotherperson made my point on consensus. Now that the consensus is 4-1, I would suggest that unless someone else objects in the next 24 hours or so, we should make the change (again). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It still isn't a consensus, a consensus is agreeing on something, not a percentage of votes (which is why I didn't like the proposer's approach as outlined in the Pub).

I really don't find the new banner significantly better than the old banner. It's just newer. The only point I could agree with is that the nameplate does have a less intrusive backdrop with the new banner. Otherwise, they both show the river, the railroad is prominent in both as it indeed is in Frankfurt, and I find the framing actually better in the old banner (duh, I made it myself, I wouldn't defend it if I haven't found it good). I believe the colour theme is more enticing, inviting, and more Frankfurt, however dark and "industrial" it may feel - this is Frankfurt. As to the cutting off of skyscrapers, this is how you see them most of the time in Frankfurt, they just cut across your POV and unless you look rally high up, you don't see the tips.

My important point here is that really replacing something good with something just slightly better is really not worth the effort IMHO. We may vote as to which banner do we prefer, but is this really so important to replace that banner? Are we going to hold contests whose banners win more votes in articles where it is fairly easy to make banners? I derive certain pride in creating banners and feel good if a creation I find really good remains up there. Acknowledging other users' achievements in that area, I try no to contest banners I find really good, but rather look for articles with no banner or banners that are clearly not very good. I believe this approach helps spread the energy generated by the desire to have one's banner up there and feel proud about over as many articles as possible and generally helps make the site better and more appealing.

I feel that the user's approach is "may the best banner win (and may it be MY BANNER HAHAHAHA)!", and not "may we have many great banners". I do not like this spirit of competitiveness and one-uppism, this is not good for the collaborative spirit we need - and lack - here. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe a consensus is understood on this site to be a substantial majority. Everyone who's taken the time and effort to make pagebanners deserves thanks and appreciation from all of us. While you are absolutely right that creating pagebanners for articles that lack them is a more important task, if someone has created another pagebanner in another language's Wikivoyage, it's good for us to look at it. Meanwhile, South Hesse, the region that's one level up the breadcrumb trail from Frankfurt, lacks a pagebanner, so your pagebanner could certainly go there. All that said, perhaps it would be better to wait for at least 2 days to see if anyone else prefers not to change the pagebanner for this article. So please do wait for a couple of days at least, ויקיג'אנקי. There is no important reason to rush. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

PrinceGloria, I'm very sorry that you were offended because I suggested new banners. My aim here is definitely not to offend you but rather to suggest alternative banners for specific locations which in my opinion work out better. As we have seen, in many instances the members of the En Voy community may very well disapprove of specific suggestions I make, YET, in some specific instances, the majority of EN voy members might agree with me that it would be better to use alternative banners than the existing banners.

Either way, I would strongly recommend that you start trying to accept the following realities:

1. Wikivoyage banners​​, as well as any of the other elements appearing in the articles, are open to discussion at any time now and in the future.
2. This is not a private website but a massively edited international collaborative project, which is edited by thousands of people from all over the world, and therefore, it is inevitable that sooner or later you'll come across someone whom disliked a specific banner you created and they will suggest that a new alternative banner would be used instead.
3. In the future instances in which specific new alternative banners would actually end up being favored by a majority of community members in a discussion, existing banners might very well end up being changed based on the new consensus reached.
4. Based on my experience with Wiki culture, most likely, in 5 years, or 10 years or 20 years from now, most of the banners currently used in Eng Voy would probably end up being replaced by more much successful and spectacular panoramic photos, whether you like it or not (this would most likely happen when the En Voy community would become much larger and diverse).
5. Although ideally everyone whom participated in such a discussion would reach eventually a unanimous agreement over the final change to be made, nevertheless, in practice, in most cases, such discussion do no end in an agreement by which all parties agree on one change which satisfies everyone (this seems to be the case in this discussion). In such instances, it is customary in most Wikimedia foundation wikis that after a reasonable amount of time has gone by since the beginning of the discussion, the change which got the majority support in the discussion would be applied to the article.
6. In addition to constantly creating new banners for articles that do not have any banners (see for example the banner I just created for the article Zikhron Ya'akov based on a picture I just imported from flickr), I am going to continue suggesting alternative banners in the instances in which I think a better banners should be used. In addition, I must also state that I won't be offended if you suggest a better banner for Zikhron Ya'akov or any other banner I created.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Opposing the change of Banner. Although I don't like the current one, I think the contrast and color of the newly proposed one is worse. Btw both User:PrinceGloria and me contributed a lot to this article. --Axisstroke (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just found this banner on commons, currently used on the Italian, French, and Greek sites but doesn't have a home here.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 08:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's very nice. Does it accurately represent the city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't speak French, Italian, or Greek, but the other sites all appear to be using it on region articles.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 09:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

If we ever decided to districtify Frankfurt, we could use it for the Old Town. Otherwise, it is very nice, but not quite representative of Frankfurt - it hides the modern skyline of the city, which is generally visible from every part thereof, very skillfully thanks to the angle and framing. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is not representative for Frankfurt town. --Axisstroke (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

South Hessefied. –Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I still prefer the current banner page but if other are not satisfied here are a few more options. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I like #3, but #4 isn't even wide enough to qualify. The minimum is 1800 pixels.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 00:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Added another few pictures. Maybe they are an option as well. To me it is either #1 or #7--Renek78 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can understand moving the Marriott out of Splurge into mid-range but any reason for removal from the page? Particularly as it is one of the most visible on the skyline and a popular brand with North American visitors. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am with you - with hotels I believe we actually SHOULD be a Yellow Pages, listing all but those really obscure and not recommendable. If we go by "when I like it, I put it in, when I don't, I remove it", we will have too much traffic I believe. I did not find certain museums in Paris particularly fascinating, but they're there, people will be looking for them and it is worthwhile to describe them and put them on the map for orientation. Same with hotels, however less sublime they may feel - people will be looking for information on them and will want to locate them on a map to orient themselves around them, as they tend to be fairly visible. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Traveler100, i made the change and during that decided to delete as well. I believe Frankfurt is at the moment having a strong growth of hotels for business travellers. The Marriott is turning ugly and even if it is visible in the Frankfurt skyline, i really didn't like it when i was in it. You are free to reinsert it in the mid-range but -as far as i'm aware- WV is not the yellow pages and others might delete again. @ PrinceGloria: Am i seeing traces of irony in your statement? jan (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am absolutely serious here - I believe all major hotels should be listed. If they are thoroughly not recommendable due to particular reasons, let us make the reasons clear in the descriptions. This will serve travellers better IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS. "Splurge" and "Mid-range" are classifications by price levels, not standards. If the Marriott is decrepit, derelict and not living up to its promise, as well as falling behind other hotels but STILL charging top dollar, it belongs in Splurge. The description field is there to let travellers know what they get for the price. The best hotel in town may still be the cheapest and the other way around. We split the hotels by price, not quality. {{subst:unsigned:User:PrinceGloria}}

Mmh, i remember that was a policy that WV are not the yellow pages. I will check but i think otherwise most Indian articles wouldn't be more editable. Re: Marriott, prices go down so definitely mid-range jan (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Someone looking at the page would just assume such a large hotel has simply been missed. Would it not be better to add an informed description of the hotel? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Traveler100, i will not start edit warring, so feel free to enter it at mid-range. Corporate rates start at 89 Euros, so the price reflects the comfort level. jan (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Corporate rates are one thing, but I am unable to find a date where a generally available rate is less than EUR 100. I may have hose a bad sample of random dates, so feel free to correct me. At any rate, pardon the pun, I guess we do need to establish the price bands for Frankfurt and how to put hotels into them (e.g. checking three weekends in particular months that are not fair dates and taking the average or sth, using rates from hotel's own site). PrinceGloria (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

[unindent] Without prejudice to this particular hotel, the relevant policy page is Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals. Non-goal #7:

Yellow pages of restaurants, hotels, bars, etc. City guides should certainly include information for travel-related companies, but these should be kept to a useful number. Think of a friend from out of town asking you where they should go – you wouldn't list all 200 possibilities, but 5–10 options for a particular type, budget, or part of town would be helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Dear all,

I will be arriving by plane to Frankfurt on May 19 and I plan to make a one-day trip to Erfurt on that occasion. Since I wouldn't want to lose time by getting first to my Frankfurt hotel to leave my luggage and then return to the Train Station, my question is the following: is there any luggage storage at the Frankfurt Airport Train Station? Or at the Erfurt Train Station? Or where can I leave my luggage in safety for a few hours, other than the hotel? Thank you in advance,

Valentin

Please ask questions like this on Wikivoyage:Tourist office.

The Airport train station doesn't appear to have left luggage, but Erfurt sation has lockers (Schließfächer). You may need coins to use a locker. AlasdairW (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

In all cases I know of, train stations in Germany have lockers that can only be accessed by paying coins, if they have lockers at all. At any rate, unless you have booked your ticket (s) already, rail and fly might diminish your time at Frankfurt airport station, as it includes a flexible ticket and ICE should be running along that route at least once an hour. Have a nice and safe trip. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are luggage storage drop off places in Frankfurt Airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Below is the map with all Wikidata items for the districts of Frankfurt. This should simplify the work in case we want to districtify the city in the future. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes. (Note: Missing mapframes will show up in the coming days) --Renek78 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

50°7′13″N 8°38′51″E

Map of Frankfurt

In light of this edit and the fact that "Mach dich ab" isn't actually proper standard German, what should we do about this mess? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

See here, but then look at its link. Is this really mainly a place for saunas? If so, why is it called "heiss und sexy" and why do its photos look like an advertisement for a strip club catering primarily to heterosexual men? Secondarily, what does "oriental" mean? It's not an acceptable word anymore in the United States, but more than that, it's unclear, and I was hoping to be able to see some scenery on their site to be able to tell whether it imitates the Far East or perhaps Iran or the Middle East. But having had a look at the site, I'm wondering whether the description is accurate. And lurking in the background is this site's sexual tourism policy, which would not apply to a strip club, but the services actually performed at this place should be clarified. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems at the very least that the IP adding the listing wasn't open about what place this is (ignorant or not). I think that means we cannot trust the listing and it should be deleted. If somebody can describe it properly and it is in scope, then please do, but somebody wanting a relaxing sauna experience with dinner could get quite chocked if those images tell what the place is about. I am deleting it now. –LPfi (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article seemed to me a little bit too long and convoluted. Should we discuss splitting it into districts? Just thinking loud here. Ibaman (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply