From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Park/Region template?[edit]

I just added a bunch of park template headers to this article, since it is for a state park. But it's a weird state park! It's about the size of Vermont, has commonly understood subregions (which are not yet all in the article), and plenty of populated towns (that were there before the area received protected park status). I think this weird hybrid model is the best way to treat the Adirondacks, but perhaps some of the headers should get cut out, if we decide to do so. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd drop a line at the pub to solicit some more feedback. There may be a solution used someplace else that we can apply here. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


Adirondacks regions

The Adirondacks are huge, and we won't have a good guide to them unless we start to break this down into more manageable chunks. The Champlain Valley and Keene Valley regions are valid, but they only cover like 1/16 of the total territory of the park. So we need to develop a comprehensive regions hierarchy for the park. That'll be hard, and I don't have any suggestions at present, but I'll return to this. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

OK, finally got around to this complex task, and I think I've come up with some pretty good regions, as shown to the right. There are a long number of ways you could divide up the park (examples: [1], [2], [3]), but these are pretty well defined and I think they make a lot of sense as travel regions (that is, they should have nice thematic coherence & content spread).
The only region with potential to become crowded is "Eastern Lakes," but that would be easy to divide up if necessary into a "Lake Champlain region" and a "Lake George region." When the boundaries are not following roads or the Hudson, they might look arbitrarily drawn, but they're actually not—I tried to keep major wilderness areas, as well as trail clusters in single regions, unsplit. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:50, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
It looks fine to me, but I have zero familiarity with the area. =) Certainly a high-quality map, I just can't speak to the accuracy of the region division. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:47, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

I am in Saranac Lake, and can mostly talk about that area. It seems to me that you might want to have the high peaks in one area and the Saranac Lakes in another. This would let you include most of the 46 High Peaks in one area and lots of the canoeing in another area. It is good that you have Long Lake and the Saranacs in the same area as there is major canoe race that goes throgh all of them. Then St. Regis Canoe Area could be in the same area as the Saranac Lakes. I'll think a bit more as well. (WT-en) Gam3

So are you suggesting that we move the Saranacs from "High Peaks & the Saranacs" to "Northwestern Lakes & Wilderness?" If so, should the latter article be renamed? Or do you think the Saranacs + Long Lake & St. Regis Canoe Area should get their own region? If so, what do you think would be a good name? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:53, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I have a couple of different ideas: 1) Move HP & SL to the west a bit so that Tupper Lake and St. Regis is in it and Elisabethtown is not. 2) Thinking of travel centers -- Just have 4 regions: Old forge, Great Sacandaga, Lake George and Tri-lakes/High-peaks, Tri-lake/High-peaks would be all the North. A line from Port Henry cutting just south of Long Lake, and would still have fewer people than the out three regions. (WT-en) Gam3 23:47, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Hmm. One disadvantage to having such a large northern region is that we're not just worried about distributing content about the populated areas. I'd like to see some good general information about the various wilderness areas, public lands, major lakes, rivers, mountains, and hikes get covered in these subregion articles. So I worry that a Tri-Lakes/High-Peaks article might have just a bit too much territory to cover well in one article.
I think the idea of moving HP/SL to the west to exclude Elizabethtown is a good one. If we use this 4-region scheme (we could divide regions in the future if need be), I think we should keep the areas east of the Northway (along Lake Champlain) still grouped with Lake George as an Eastern Lakes region. The highway makes it a pretty coherent travel region (as does the unbroken canoe route!) That will cut down on the sheer size and scope of the territory to be described in the large Northern Area region article.
(Sorry I took so long to respond!) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:46, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Where do we stand on this? Conceptually, I like the five-region map shown above, and I agree it seems to make sense (simply looking at the map, admittedly, and with no knowledge of the area) to move Elizabethtown to the Eastern Lakes region (to keep both sides of the Northway corridor in the same region). Can we agree to do that and then get started on implementing the region breakdown? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:34, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

I've been doing a lot more hiking and poring over various maps of the Adirondacks lately, and would want to devote some good time to reviewing this breakdown before going forward. I'm working on too many things right now at once, though... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:18, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
2nd draft

OK, here's a new draft, which I think is ready for implementation. My only concerns are that the northwestern region may be too big, or that the two southwestern regions may be too small. But we'll have a better idea of that once the regions have actually been created. This has taken too long, time to act ;) --Peter Talk 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

High Peaks looks small, but I assume there's a lot to cover therein. I don't think the other regions are obviously too large or too small. Do you think any of these regions will be subdivided at all, or will they be right above the cities in the hierarchy? If the latter, what happens to Keene Valley and Champlain Valley? LtPowers (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
High Peaks is definitely dense enough for travel information, although it will challenge our usual methods a bit, since the focus is on things we haven't done all that well (wilds, not towns). On the upside, I know a ton about the region, so I should be able to help come up with a logic that fits the way we do things. Others may need to be divided, but I don't think they should be subdivided—just split into more "top-level" regions. The one that would probably strain one region most quickly would be Eastern Lakes. Keene Valley should redirect to High Peaks and Champlain Valey to Eastern Lakes. --Peter Talk 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
After looking more closely at those two articles I mentioned, it turns out that Champlain Valley is actually in Vermont, and Keene Valley should probably be renamed to Keene (New York), since it appears to be about the town and not a region. The way they were linked on Adirondacks confused me. LtPowers (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Confused me too! --Peter Talk 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Barring any objections, I'm going to implement this shortly. It's a big task and I'm in the mood to do it, so I should strike while the iron's hot ;) --Peter Talk 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me; I've renamed Keene Valley and removed both that and Champlain Valley from the regions list on this article. LtPowers (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget to change the "Hudson Valley" label on the map to "Capital District". =) LtPowers (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears as if the subregions process for the adirondacks has stopped, but just in case, I grew up near here and am somewhat familiar with it. Elizabethtown looks close to Lake Champlain, but there's a mountain range in the way and I've always thought of it as High Peaks. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it essential for the Adirondacks to be divided into subregions? This region article itself is practically empty, and the number of "Cities" is hardly overwhelming. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well there are 20 towns just on the map, not to mention other points of interest all over. It's also the size of Vermont, so there's value in simply being able identify distinct regions to describe to visitors. That said, maybe it would be best to keep everything in one region for now until the amount of content begins to overwhelm it. Powers (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd support adding subregions based on pure size (I think it's actually quite a bit bigger than VT), although I agree that the amount of content doesn't currently justify it and realistically it may never need this many subregions based purely on amount of content.Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The lack of content is exactly the point. We create more regions when there is more content to deal with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If I may, I think Peter's concern may have been that the region is too large to summarize succinctly. But perhaps that can be gotten around by using the proposed regions as a pseudo-structure, describing each subregion within this article without giving each one its own article just yet. Powers (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure. That makes perfect sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation advice[edit]

Just a thought from a non native English-speaker: Might it be a good idea to add pronunciation advice for places with "non-obivous" names like these? Is it Add iron decks? a deer run ducks? Something else? Where do you put the stress? Mispronouncing place-names is sure to result in being recognized as an "obvious foreigner" (with all the being ripped off that might entail) at the very least. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Adirondack" is actually relatively common as NYS placenames go, being the namesake of a furniture style. I'd thought the pronunciation (a-der-RON-daks) to be fairly obvious (or as obvious as any English pronunciation could be), but perhaps not. The problem is where to draw the line -- if "Adirondacks" is on the 'non-obvious' side, then so is Schenectady and Canandaigua and maybe even Binghamton. We do address the pronunciation of Skaneateles, but that's one even New Yorkers have trouble with. Powers (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Skaneateles? I shall have to find a "skinny atlas" and look that one up. :) K7L (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we should explain the pronunciation in the lede or in the "understand" section once. If possible in one sentence and maybe with the aid of IPA-symbols. That way the lede (or the understand section) has something to say (which may or may not aid SEO) and the issue is dealt with. I would of course be against mentioning it at every mention of the name of the place. And I gather that upstate New York has quite a bit of place-names that derive from indigenous American terms, which seems to complicate matters somewhat ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't use IPA symbols. I am having trouble understanding what, other than the accented syllable, would make the name "Adirondacks" hard to pronounce. Just write "the third syllable is accented" in parentheses, if it's really important. By the way, I definitely think Schenectady is worth explaining pronunciation for (more or less "skuh-NEK-tuh-dee", I think). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
They all seem fairly obvious to me, except Skaneateles, but I'm a New Yorker. Then again, I recall very few English placenames I've had a hard time pronouncing; La Jolla is the only one I can remember right now. I'm just not sure where Hobbitschuster wants to draw the line. Powers (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Neunkirchen is difficult to pronounce. And the German relation between what is written and how you say it is rather straightforward. But we do have to keep in mind that not all our readers are native speakers. And as I hinted at above there are several ways you could pronounce the place... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Neunkirchen is not hard to pronounce reasonably accurately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand, Hobbitschuster, but we are the English Wikivoyage; we have to expect a basic level of familiarity with English (while no such expectation exists for any other language). I'm not sure how you'd get the pronunciation "decks" or "ducks" from the spelling "-dacks", but I'm willing to accept your non-native perspective that the pronunciation is ambiguous. But if we do that, we're going to have to rely on you to tell us all of the American and English and Australian placenames that are hard for a non-native speaker to pronounce. Powers (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well in English an "a" can be pronounced roughly like a Spanish "a" or roughly like the "a" in track. an "i" can be pronounced as in "inquisition" or as in "hire"... There are even place names that should be pronounced the same, but aren't like Birmingham (England) (silent h) and Birmingham (Alabama) (the h is pronounced) or the fact that Kansas and Arkansas are not pronounced even remotely similar. After all what do we lose if include one line on the pronunciation or common mistakes regarding it? The thing is: In most common languages you can guess the pronunciation of unknown words (including place-names) with a reasonable level of accuracy if you know the general pronunciation rules. In English, stuff is just all over the place with silent letters thrown in for good measure that sometimes don't even make etymological sense... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
English is a very cosmopolitan language. And yes, spelling does not always point the way to correct pronunciation. But a few phonetic rules will get you 80% of the way there. As I said, I'm willing to accept your contention about "Adirondacks", but we really need to know which other articles you think need pronunciation guides before we can make a decision on whether to include them as a matter of course. Powers (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not able to give a generalized list (though Arkansas and Birmingham, England can should and do mention their pronunciation). In general, I'd think places that are frequently mispronounced (especially when they are frequently mispronounced a certain way) as well as some of those "tongue twisters" (such as the Schentetctady or something place mentioned above) would serve the voyageur if there were even a single line regarding their pronunciation. It is of course not needed in each and every place, especially if the "seemingly obvious" pronunciation is indeed the correct one. I mean, we do mention regional nicknames for some cities and places, don't we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like we're in agreement that you can simply mention in each article's talk page that you would like some guidance on the pronunciation of the name. But I'll add that while it's easy to explain the accentuation of a name, I don't think it's either easy or important to explain precisely how the letter "A" is pronounced in "Adirondacks". The pronunciation will vary depending on accent, but the variation is not a big deal; it's the accentuation that could be a problem for understanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if our metric is "frequently mispronounced", I don't know if 'Adirondacks' qualifies anyway. Powers (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Should Malone (New York) even be in this article? It's not in the park, but its {{isPartOf}} link points here instead of to North Country/NNY. K7L (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Do we need to have two different maps in the article? Powers (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing the perfectly good static map -- which shows the subregions -- wasn't what I had in mind. Powers (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither of these maps is perfect. From the static map, I can't tell whether Glens Falls is even within the park boundary (it most likely is not) and the list of villages doesn't quite match the numbered list in the article. K7L (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)