From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regions - Organization[edit]

I don't know Maine all that well, so I just lifted the regions list straight off the official tourism Web site. If there's some fine-tuning to do, please step in and do so! --(WT-en) Evan 11:28, 14 Mar 2004 (EST)

The regions from the site do seem to be fairly standard as far as the Maine tourism industry goes.

These "regions" a bit ambiguous though.
To me, Maine's 16 counties are more logical regions.
8 counties are coastal, and 8 are inland; so the state can be divided into two big regions, each subdivided into 8 counties.

Counties of Maine are:



Considering: Project:Geographical_hierarchy#Dividing_geographical_units, The 7 plus or minus 2 rule.
--(WT-en) Jdunlevy 20 January 2005, 18:00 CST.
Rather than following the 7 plus or minus 2 rule you have created a pair of eights, with just the 2 regions in the top level article. All the counties fit into either Inland (Maine) or Coastal (Maine). The 7 plus or minus 2 rule applies to the yet to be created regional articles, not the Maine article, which now really has just 2 regions. The county lists mask this fact, and should be compressed into a trailing sentence like: ... including ..., ... and ... counties.
The Coastal/Inland split is possibly OK, though I know almost nothing about Maine, (beyond what is in the article) so I think this new layout is highly debatable. Following the organisation of some of the Maine tourist websites might be just as good. Before making more changes I think others who know Maine reasonably well should discuss the regions organisation.
Also, before going too far with this level of regional organisation please consider the article naming conventions, especially the hierarchy. Is it necessary to have every county name followed by County (Maine)? Surely the county's name alone is enough, unless another separate place exists. Also should it be ... County (Maine) or ... (county, Maine) or ... County or ... (county) or ... (Maine) ? I believe the naming convention recommends the shortest name is the most appropriate one to use, meaning disambiguators should only appear if and when they are needed. I hope there are no objections, but I took the liberty of shortening the names to their logical minimums, without then linking to existing or likely articles.
Finally there were already 2 existing stubs, Mid-coast (Maine) and Southern Coast (Maine) that have been unlinked; these are now orphan articles. (Well, at least they were until I mentioned them here.) What should happen to these regions? Put them back? Put them on another page? Revert the regional changes??!! -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:04, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)
FYI, the word "County" is considered an integral part of the name of a county of almost all such counties in the U.S. (The only exceptions I can think of are the boroughs of New York City, or other cities which are co-terminous with their counties, like say, San Francisco). For instance Chicago is located in Cook County, Illinois, however a chicagoan is likely to give you a funny look if you say, "so are you from Cook?", then after thinking about it would be likely to say, "Oh, you mean Cook County? Yeah." -- (WT-en) Mark 08:33, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)
I'll stick "County" back into these. Will leave the Maine out -- though I'm sure it will eventually be necessary at least for Washington County, Lincoln County, Knox County, etc -- those which are probably county names in other states as well. Ugh, sorry I missed the existing stubs. -- (WT-en) Jdunlevy 12:02, 21 Jan 2005 (CST)
So, then, is there a resolution/agreement to the regions here?? It looks to be Inland with 3 Coastal regions on the article page, but I'm not sure what is in the three coastal regions. That makes some sense as the most touristed regions are coastal. I don't hate the official tourism Web site referenced above with it's 8 regions, although the county usage makes for easy designation of towns to region. I think lack of resolution of regional boundaries often stymies new contributors. I plunged ahead without reading the discussion and relinked South Coastal I think. Clearly the towns/regions are in disarray. Compromise might be delineate the eight regions in the tourism site by county. (WT-en) OldPine 15:57, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Using the Office of Tourism's 8 regions has some key advantages:

  • They have fairly distinctive names already picked out for them, and some touristy generalizations about them already spelled out; there's no reinventing-the-wheel needed. One might also assume that they know what they're talking about. :)
  • With one exception, these regions are delineated by county borders (Cumberland County is split), which makes it easy to say, for example, "Maine Highlands includes Penobscot and Piscataquis counties" and determine from that which town goes in which region.
  • We can link to the state site's subpages on each of the region articles as their One Official External Link.
  • By having this many smallish regions, we may be able to avoid creating sub-region articles for each of the counties. That would save us from a disambiguation mess with all the other Lincoln and Washington Counties in the US, and also keep the Maine hierarchy simple.

- (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:36, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Evil external links; hide the children![edit]

For contributors to consult.

County articles[edit]

Summary as at Dec.06:

Regional breakdown[edit]

Just looking at the subregions immediately below the state article.... They appear to be rather barren besides just a list of towns. Maybe we should reduce their number or change the approach? A discussion on the general issues is currently active at the pub Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)