Talk:Vermont

Regions

Without knowing too much about Vermont, could we pare down the regions into a smaller list? The current list is:

• Islands and Farms Includes the Islands on Lake Champlain and North Hero and St. Albins.
• Stowe/Smugglers' Notch This is the resort area of Stowe and Smugglers' Notch
• Northeast Kingdom The remote sparsely populated area of the Northeast. Take a trip back to the 1950's.
• Lake Champlain Valley The valley area along the lake and includes the cities of Burlington (Vermont) and Shelburne.
• Central Vermont The Capital City area of Montpelier and Barre. You can visit and capital and also see the covered bridges of central Vermont.
• Mid Vermont for All Seasons Includes Middlebury with classic 18th and 19th Century buildings.
• Crossroads of Vermont The Rutland and Killington areas of Vermont.
• Eastern Vermont Gateways
• Southern Windsor County
• Green Mountains
• Southern Vermont

Which I think could be reduced to:

• Northern Vermont
• Southern Vermont
• Central Vermont

Lake Champlain and other regions could then be made into sub-regions of the three parent regions. Does that make sense, or is the geography/tourism in the state such that it should be done differently? For instance, is there a need to create a Northeast Kingdom and a corresponding region for the northwest? And should the region names be something other than just North, South, and Central? -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:01, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Vermont is a very small state, I think you are right. I was just using the Regions that the tourism department set up. I think your idea is good. We could include the tourism regions in each of the main area regions and not do a seperate breakout on each one. I will go ahead and do that. (WT-en) Xltel 18:42, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Great, thanks. We don't always follow what a state's department of tourism uses, and may instead use anything from Dmoz to Wikipedia to (and especially) local knowledge to come up with a set of regions that are most relevant for tourists and also maintainable. One problem we've had has been specifically defining what is contained within a region (see Talk:Bay Area (California) for one example), and we've yet to come up with a good solution, so any suggestions are welcome. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:55, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Made the changes, but I may go back and split the Northern region into Northeast and Northwest Kingdom as these two areas are quite different. The Northeast would have the largest city in Vermont and the lake Champlain shore line, while the Norrthwesk Kingdom is very remote and sparsely populated, but does have some things that would make it interesting as a seperate region. Your thoughts? And thank you very much for your help and comments, I am very new at this and the help is very much appreciated -- (WT-en) Xltel 19:10, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

You're doing great. Go ahead and split up the Northern Vermont regions if they're different, sounds like it makes sense to do so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:15, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)

Having lived in VT for most of my life, I don't find the current regional breakdown entirely accurate. The Northeast Kingdom is exactly as it should be, but the other ones in my opinion need to be renamed or reorganized. Central VT is definitely a real region, but I doubt anyone who lives here would consider Addison County to be part of central vermont. There aren't many roads connecting it to the other central VT counties(there's a bunch of mountains in the way). That leaves the problem of what to do with it. My thought is add it in with Northwest VT and rename the region Champlain Valley (Vermont). The other area of concern is Southern Vermont. It does exist as a region, but most people in my experience wouldn't consider rutland or windsor counties part of southern Vermont. Windsor and Orange counties are referred to as the Upper Valley, but that would also include parts of New Hampshire. The current regional breakdown is making it hard (for me at least) to add content to the empty central and southern VT articles since as they currently stand, they don't exist as regions to me. I really don't know what I want to do here so any help from someone who knows VT reasonably well would be much appreciated. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have most of a proposal formed. Leave NEK the way it is, add Addison County to Northwest VT and rename it Champlain Valley. Take Lamoille, Washington, and interior parts of Orange county and call them Central VT. Connecticut River part of orange county along with windsor and windham counties would become Upper Valley. Bennington and Rutland counties would be grouped together and called the Valley of Vermont. I realize the name for this last one might not be as widely used as the others, but it is an accurate description of the location of the major towns in each county. My only issue with this breakdown is that I'm not sure Brattleboro is really in the Upper Valley, but at least its situated on the CT river and is well connected to the other towns in the region. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk

This "talk" section is VERY FALSE. I have lived iv vermont most my life and it is not like that.

With one-syllable words we say them like they are one,not two, like cow would be cow and that would be that. As for the uh sounds that will happen on VERY rare occations. You will not be called a flatlander as long as: you are not a prick, you dont drive like a prick(we dont care if you drive fast though :) ),etc.. I think that all of those dialect things were more like new york city not vt.. thanks, bye PS: I know that now vermonters seem mean but we really arent at all.. before people come here they think we are.. —The preceding comment was added by 216.66.126.229 (talk • contribs)

Cities

I had the eventual goal of the 9 cities for VT being Burlington, Montpelier, Brattleboro, Bennington, Stowe, Newport or St. Johnsbury, Middlebury, Rutland, and Manchester. Any input would be helpful. Most of the articles are pretty empty hence Essex Junction and South Burlington are currently included since they have usable articles. Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, it doesn't matter how good the linked articles are; what's important is that we get readers to the destinations they're most likely to be seeking. LtPowers (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)