Talk:Pacific Northwest

123

I followed all the listing rules. I don't understand. This is a lovely vacation rental collective. I honestly feel that travelers will love these places. The IVR rentals are so much more personal and way more suitable for a family holiday. I think you are cheating your visitors out of a great vacation rental place. I am saddened and now feel I cannot trust the wikiTravel pages to offer me all the info & options available when I'm looking for holiday options.

Please read the messages we've been writing to you at User talk:(WT-en) Gutsche. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

More specifically, the rules on Project:Accommodation listings state that we only list rental agencies when they have a physical presence in a location. Discuss on Project:Accommodation listings if you think this policy is an error. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)

ID is considered part of the "Pacific Northwest"

I'm from Idaho, and have lived in the PNW my entire life. For as long as I've lived there Idaho has been and still is considered part of the Pacific Northwest. If for no other reason, this entry should be updated to be consistent with the definition found in WikiPedia for "Pacific Northwest".

Wikipedia-Pacific Northwest

There have been a lot of discussions about how to break down regions in the US - whether California and Texas are part of the Southwest, what the boundaries of the South are, etc. Have a look at Talk:United States of America to see some of the discussions that led to the current regional hierarchy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:00, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I looked at didn't see much at the discussion page. I believe that we should split North Idaho and South Idaho, putting North into Pacific Northwest and South into Rocky Mountain. Here's why:

• North Idaho is in the Pacific Time zone, however South Idaho is in the Mountain time zone.
• North Idaho's climate and geography is much closer to the PNW (mountains, lakes, lots of boreal forest, with a comparatively wet climate), whereas South is more like the rocky mountain states: (arid, flat except for really mountainous areas, not many trees).
• Politically and Economically, Northern Idaho tends to be much more in line with PNW states: generally liberal and with a tourist economy, South is more conservative and has an agricultural economy.

I really think we should switch. I believe it would help visitors understand the fundamental difference between the two regions...

(WT-en) L'Aquatique 01:54, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The discussions are spread all over the place at this point, but Talk:Southwest (United States of America)#Texas & Colorado has a similar discussion. A continual problem we have is that places simply don't fall into nice regions, and whether it's deciding whether how to divide up the USA, California, or San Francisco it takes a LONG time to come to any decision, and even after a decision is made there are always good arguments for other breakdowns. In the case of US regions the preference has been that regions should split along state borders. That means that for states like Idaho, Texas, Colorado, West Virginia and others there may be more than one region that is suitable, and we have to pick one. Idaho probably could have gone either way (as you've pointed out), but in the end people felt most comfortable describing it as a mountain state. Arguments for change are welcome, but hopefully this discussion at least gives some background as to why things are currently like they are. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:35, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Certainly. I completely agree that Idaho could have gone either way, and I suggesting that it does. Splitting it along the time zone change line seems logical to me, but I do understand that others might have the same differing opinions. What process would I have to go through to get it changed, some sort of vote, I assume? (WT-en) L'Aquatique 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

First a warning: the US regions have been fairly well established for a long time, so it will probably be an uphill battle to change them, and it may take a long time for a consensus to build to change the status quo (see Project:Consensus). Given that warning, you might want to ask people to add to this discussion by requesting feedback on Talk:United States of America or in the Project:Travelers' pub. Personally, despite having visited on a few occasions I don't know enough about Idaho to say whether it's more appropriate as part of the Rocky Mountains or Pacific Northwest, but I'd oppose splitting either region except on a state border as I'm not sure there's enough of a benefit to doing so and it would open a can of worms with regards to other states. If there is enough support for moving it to the Pacific Northwest that seems more reasonable. Anyhow, that's my two cents. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I was born and raised in SE Washington, and Idaho has ALWAYS (since name "Idaho" was first applied to split off of old Oregon Territory and later Washington Territory) been part of PNW. Stop trying to change history! That's not your job! —The preceding comment was added by 2602:306:c433:5f90:c9e8:8177:e606:77e5 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikivoyage! I moved your post to the bottom of the thread, which is where new posts go, and signed for you. All edits on talk pages should be signed by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of the post. But on the tone: If you want to make an argument, considering the fact that you would have to convince a consensus to change a long-established regional structure for the U.S., you are more likely to get a positive response if you don't use language like "that's not your job". We're all volunteers here, so I really don't know what you're talking about in that regard. Finally, on substance: I'm from New York, which when I was growing up was always to my knowledge called part of the Northeast, yet on Wikivoyage, it's part of the Mid-Atlantic region, and when years ago, I rather indignantly said that anyone suggesting it's not part of the Northeast was "wrong", evidence was brought to bear that there are indeed people who consider it Mid-Atlantic (I think it's too far north for that to be really logical, but names aren't always logical). So, Idaho's history is one thing, but in terms of geography and maybe character, it doesn't seem erroneous to consider it a Rocky Mountain state. I could really go either way on this question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

article name

Is there a particular reason why this is article is Pacific Northwest (United States of America) instead of just Pacific Northwest (which just redirects here)? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:36, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Apparently not; I've moved it. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:54, 31 January 2009 (EST)

British Columbia not included?

I understand why one would perhaps not include Northern California, Idaho, or Alaska in this article due to various classification difficulties, but it makes no sense to not include British Columbia. It is part of the same ecosystem, political and social values are more or less identical, a very similar history is shared, and so on. Wikipedia's article on the Pacific Northwest also recognizes BC as an integral part of the region. This article is quite Amerocentric! Really, there's no reason not to include BC.

edit: I should add that I do realize this article is under the "United States of America" category, but I believe the Pacific Northwest page should be independent of the aforementioned category and re-categorized as an international region (like the Scandinavia article, the Mediterranean article, etc.)

-- —The preceding comment was added by 24.85.226.38 (talk • contribs) .

The reason not to include BC is because crossing the border is non-trivial, especially for non-North Americans. We would have to include all sorts of border crossing information in the Get Around section that properly belongs in the Canada and United States of America articles' Get In sections. There's also the issue of prices; we would have to use two different currencies.

I understand your concerns, but we try to keep to the Project:Geographical hierarchy, which means Pacific Northwest can't be both a region of the U.S. and a region of Canada. If you'll notice, Scandinavia is a super-national article; it contains entire countries, not just a few constituent parts of multiple countries. And Mediterranean redirects to Europe; we don't have an article for it.

(WT-en) LtPowers 20:05, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Other destinations

Is there a reason why there are three ski areas in the "Other destinations"? I think there are more diverse places to put on this list, such as the Oregon Coast or the Columbia Gorge? After all, they aren't really like world-class ski resorts and listing three of them seems disporportionate. —The preceding comment was added by 76.104.160.27 (talk • contribs)

map questions

So, we have a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the PNW that does not even make the map, yet the San Juan Islands get a special blue square usually reserved for nation parks and even Mt. St Helens gets a mention despite it not even being a national park, does anyone mind if I work on this a little? At the very least the 4 National Parks in this area should be listed. Lumpytrout (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the map only shows four Other Destinations, but the blue square is not "special" in any way. It merely signifies non-city destinations that have articles. The list of Other Destinations need not be restricted to national parks; otherwise many states like New York wouldn't have any at all. LtPowers (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

you know what LT? I think this might be a bigger discussion for the Pub and I will bring it up there. I'm not suggesting that ONLY National Parks should be listed, but don't you think that a National Park at least deserves a passing mention? North Cascades National Park holds more than half of the glaciers in the lower 48 states and is on many outdoor enthusiasts top 10 world lists but it does not even make the 'other destinations' list?!? of Or that maybe an Unesco World Heritage site might outweigh Opal Creek (which I don't think is even a state park) for making the list?!? If this section is meant to be a joke, I'm not laughing. Lumpytrout (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Any guide that doesn't appear at Star articles can be assumed to be incomplete. You won't find many guides that don't have obvious omissions. No one intended any disrespect or intentional slight. LtPowers (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly what I am worried about right now is the structure of Wikivoyage is geared towards urban areas at the expense of wilderness areas which makes using it difficult, but I will post something about that in the pub. I'm a pretty active wikivoyage user so if you want to just flag something that I'm working on in the future I promise you will get better results. I appreciate your insight, I'm not overly familiar with the standards so I generally try to look around at what other regions are doing before I try something which does not always serve me well. I can make this section way better. Lumpytrout (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Consulates

Per Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it and Wikivoyage:Huge city article template, consulate and embassy listings should go into the corresponding city article; we don't need to duplicate their listings in state and region articles. LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

okay, again I'm just looking at other regions when making style decisions. In this case Florida. Lumpytrout (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll bring it up at the Pub; I thought we'd resolved that. It's possible folks may be willing to have them at the state level (which would be Washington or Oregon here), but I think that the region-level would be pushing it. LtPowers (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)