Talk:Southern Tier

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have removed certain headers that do not make sense for the region. As per Wikivoyage guidelines (from the FAQ page here: only certain headers are required in each article. Specifically:

The following sections are obligatory and should be in every article:
   * Get in
   * Get around
   * See
   * Eat
   * Sleep 

As an example, the Drink header does not really belong in a regional page unless the region is known for a given drink. The Finger Lakes region needs a drink section as it is world famous for the wines it produces... The Southern Tier has no special drink, hence, not drink header.

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Jtpurdom (talkcontribs) .

Sure, just one problem -- you also removed the Sleep section. In fact, you've added the Drink section back, despite justifying its removal above, yet Sleep is still missing even though it appears on the list of obligatory sections. Get Out is also very useful and should only be omitted in extraordinary cases. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:57, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Ok. Good call on the sleep... although it is a good example of a heading that has no meaning in a Regional setting. As for the drink section, I recalled that a decent brewery is located here. --jtpurdom

Sleep is often an excellent candidate to be removed from region articles, since there is often nothing unique about accommodations in one small region to another (say, from county to county in the US). And the section can attract spam. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:16, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
I believe it's appropriate, if only to specify where one might find accommodations -- like "For a decent selection of hotels, you'll need to go to Jamestown, Corning, or Binghamton; Elmira and Olean have a few but options are more limited. Outside of those communities, you'll have to take what you can get." Something like that. I assume there was a reason "Sleep" is required on all articles at one time, though I could see an argument for removing that requirement. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:33, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
That's a fine sleep section, but still strikes me as unnecessary. It basically duplicates the information from the cities section, which identifies the main cities. And it's the U.S.—virtually every town will have somewhere to sleep, in addition to endless highway motels. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:08, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

I am going to call this entry done. I leave it in usable status... I am going to go work on some of its sub-pages (probably Binghamton and Tioga county) and try to get a guide status here. I may come back in the near future to add some pics. Feel free to add anything you think would help. --Jtpurdom, 17:50 8 July 2009

Very nice work. My only suggestion would be to consider if the counties really are the best way to subdivide the region. It's possible that it is, but on the other hand it may be too fine a division given the number of destinations in the region. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:38, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

County list order[edit]

I think that the list of counties should be sorted geographically as opposed to alphabetically. Having only edited a couple of articles, I am not completely sure if they have to be sorted in alphabetical order, but if not, I think that it would make things simpler to see where it is on the map. If it is to be sorted geographically (preferably west to east) it would go in this order.

  • Chautauqua
  • Cattaraugus
  • Allegany
  • Steuben
  • Chemung
  • Tioga
  • Broome

--Bothvar (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like, mentioning that you are listing counties from west to east. Why that way, by the way? East to west would be just as easy, so why is one way more intuitive to you than the other? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what I liked better about west to east. I'll sort it east to west, given that it seems a little more natural. Bothvar (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
West to east is natural because English-speakers read left-to-right. You're correct that sorting geographically is better than alphabetically in this instance. However, all that said, I'm still not convinced that by-county is the best way to organize this region. There's precious little in Allegany County, for instance, compared to Broome, and there may be other subdivision schemes that would be more appropriate. LtPowers (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting thought on how people read maps, LtPowers. I think that in states that have a seacoast or at least a port and greater population in the east (which would be at least most of the Eastern Seaboard states), many people may read the maps the other way, but I don't say this to be contrary and don't have a strong opinion about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Spoken like a true downstater, Ikan! =) LtPowers (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)