Talk:Chesapeake Bay

After some discussions with my friend (WT-en) Jonboy, I've decided to try something different with this page. I vacation quite a bit on a sailboat on the Chesapeake Bay and was looking for somewhere to share interesting destinations, which includes both cities and harbors and creeks. There is a site called wikicruising but it is (a) almost empty; (b) trying to be a commercial venture which turns me (and apparenly many others) off. Hope the masters of WikiTravel will like this idea and support the concept. It will probably take a while to develop, but I think it will fit in well when done. Thanks. --(WT-en) Wwc 13:44, 8 March 2006 (EST)

We don't normally do bodies of water. See Project:Bodies of water. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:58, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Just another note, you might want to look at changing this to something like "Sailing the Chesapeake Bay" and make it an itinerary. See Project:Itineraries. Also, I would suggest the links under "Other destinations" be de-linked as these are bodies of water also. Good luck. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:07, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Ok, I will try to cast it more like that. --(WT-en) Wwc 14:17, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I thought it might work well as a region (which would cross other regions). (WT-en) Jonboy 14:38, 8 March 2006 (EST)

So, the problem I'm having making this an itinerary is that the important thing is not the order in which you visit places. There is no fixed "route" when "Sailing the Chesapeake Bay", so I don't think it is an itinerary. I understand the reason to not generally have bodies of water as articles, as they are often attractions to see while travelling to a destination city, but when the travel destination IS a body of water, I think it would make sense to have an article. Think of the Lake Tahoe example. I guess I'm wondering if that works to group a bunch of places that might be traveled to as a destination, why not the Chesapeake Bay? Maybe some of the other destinations should be in the "Stay" or "Do" sections..... -- (WT-en) Wwc 15:43, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I guess I missed what you are wanting to do. I thought you were wanting an article about things to do "on" the Bay. A regional article like Lake Tahoe covers places "around" the lake. If you look closely at Project:Itineraries you will see it does not have to be structured end-to-end (i.e. One month in Southeast Asia). So, it is really up to you. It could be a collection of different things to do "on" the Bay or differnt iteneraries grouped together in a unstructured itinerary format. Or you could make it more like a regional article that has things to do "around" the bay. Just trying to help you fit this in and do what you want to do. I suggest you continue and see where it takes you. We can always move the article to a new name later. I was just thinking sooner then later. Maybe others have different view and will add their comments. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:12, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Frankly, I'd prefer that people write good articles and we worry about fitting it into templates later, if the alternative is that we scare away information because we can't find a template to fit it into. I know nothing about Chesapeake Bay, but if Sailboating on Chesapeake Bay is an article worth writing about, then I'd say go for it. If nothing else, it would make a good travel topic. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 17:30, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I have taken this advice into account and filled in a bit of the article structure. Any comments would be appreciated, but be gentle I've just become a WikiTraveler today! I have much more I'd like to add but want to get feedback before doing it. -- (WT-en) Wwc 18:46, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Article status

The main guidelines for this article, although it is somewhat a hybrid of a region and a park template, is at Project:Region guide status. To get to usable, I think that all is needed at this point is to get the main destinations up to usable status. The remaining ones are, IMO: Solomons, Deltaville, Cambridge, Smith Island, and Hooper's Island.

Tons more work would be required to get this article to guide status, and that would likely require help from someone with a lot of knowledge of the area. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 01:05, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

Happy to say it's now at usable status! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:18, 2 November 2009 (EST)