I don't want to get too carried away with the number of cities. Should we limit it here to just to the top 10 according to pop and then list the rest on the regions pages? Nowimnothing 14:34, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
Yes. 9 or 10 is the standard limit. See Wikitravel:Region_article_template. Doesn't have to be by pop, though; interest to the traveler is better, but more subjective. -- Jonboy 14:59, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
I have now disambiguated the page. -- Huttite 20:42, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
And I have confused this disambiguation :-) by moving the Bloomington (Illinois) page to Bloomington-Normal (Illinois) to start turning the two parts of the "Twin Cities" into a single destination, as recommended in the discussion page there. I think I got everything done that needed doing on this ... Incidentally, there are several other Bloomingtons in the United States, and maybe some in other English-speaking countries, so we're probably not done with this. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:29, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)
I'm working on expanding this article to incorporate more travel information about our lovely state. If you intend on visiting Indianapolis please leave me a message on my talk page and we can chat a bit more about it (per dossier). Missvain 10:55, 18 December 2006 (EST)
I am willing to change the names, but first we need to work out a structure and move sub pages to the right spot. I will look at some other states and post some samples. Nowimnothing 19:50, 21 December 2006 (EST)
I agree with you it is sort of shoddy. It's hard defining the areas, and I researched into any serious "offical" titles for the regions and there wasn't one. I'm pretty open minded with defining the areas. The easier and less the better. I'm expanding the region pages, and I figure if we can come up with a good idea for each 'section' then we can just cut and paste the information (get in/out/stay/see/buy/do etc) to that areas page(s). Missvain 22:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks. Great work on Indy by the way. It seems most of the other states break down regions into North, South, Central, etc. unless there is a popular travel spot like Pennsylvania Dutch Country.
We can move this discussion over to Indiana and see what we can come up with. Nowimnothing 16:50, 22 December 2006 (EST)
What should we call the region around Chicago? I think that and central are the easiest to define. People around here just call it the region. Michiana would probably be a subset of the chicagoland region. Nowimnothing 16:50, 22 December 2006 (EST)
I think "The Region" is good. Everyone I know who comes from that area (Lowell, Hobart, etc) calls it "The Region." The only concern I really have is about defining areas "east and west" of Central Indiana. What counties do we call the line at? I figure the few counties surrounding INdianapolis? And when do we call it the quits at the SW/NW/SE/NE areas. I'm sure there is a simple area, but my brain is fried from working this Holiday season. Btw, I built pages for the Indiana National Parks that didn't have pages previous George Clark and Lincoln Boyhood. Missvain 23:55, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Great, I think we have to break the regions down into blocks of counties. The number of regions is up to us, but it seems most of the other states stay around 4-8. I don't think Indiana is diverse enough to warrant more regions than that. If we can define some general regions, then we can debate where individual counties fit if we need to. Any system is going to have flaws, but it will still look better than those wacky congressional maps.
So for starters, maybe we have:
Region - Counties near Chicago in the Central Time Zone
Central - Indianapolis and surrounding counties
Southern - Everything South of Indy that is not in one of the other regions?
Western/Wabash - Not really comfortable with Wabash Valley since it goes all the way to Kentucky.
Eastern - Fort Wayne
But then we lose South Bend, since it is on eastern time now, maybe add Michiana back, though I am uncomfortable with that too since Michiana includes counties in Michigan. Maybe just Lake Michigan is better.
I am going to be out of the country for a couple weeks, feel free to try out new ideas for organization. We can always use the move feature instead of cutting and pasting into a new structure. That method is actually better since it keeps the page history. Nowimnothing 16:00, 23 December 2006 (EST)
Also remember that the state and region pages don't have to have as much info as the city pages. They are more general in nature and may just highlight things that you will not find in the city pages. Nowimnothing 16:06, 23 December 2006 (EST)
I know you don't like the Michiana thing, but thats a common term it seems for people who live in the north central Indiana area and are on the border. I like it better then "Lake Michigan" just because most people associate that area with Michigan state itself. I've been building up region/state pages more for activities that are not featured in the city pages, and activities that encompass broader areas or don't fit into city pages. As seen in my contributions. Hope you enjoy your trip! Missvain 21:13, 25 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks! See wikipedia:michiana for a clarification on why it seems innapropriate to me. It technically includes 2 counties in Michigan. I agree the region names are difficult. Nowimnothing 18:54, 11 January 2007 (EST)
I noticed another use just added some more region related things - north central, etc. It's really frusterating trying to figure out what to list. We just need to keep it as simple as possible. Take a look at the users change and I trust you to figure out what is best for our humble state :D Missvain 14:36, 15 January 2007 (EST)
Ugh... I think we can get rid of that since it just copies Michiana. I found this  that has some interesting regions defined. I think 12 is too much and 3 is too little but maybe we can combine them to come up with something. Then again there is a certain simplicity to the 3 region map . I guess the question is whether the regions would be alike enough in a travelers mind to warrant this grouping. Nowimnothing 10:22, 16 January 2007 (EST)
Ok I went with the simplest solution, the 3 region breakdown. If we need more categories in the future we can always break those down even more, but with the amount of content we have right now, 3 is probably fine.220.127.116.11 19:03, 18 January 2007 (EST) oops it logged me out Nowimnothing 19:04, 18 January 2007 (EST)
That looks great, now I can work on expanding the regions. :D Missvain 14:08, 14 February 2007 (EST)
I also wanted to mention that we really need some good photos of Indiana/cities/places/regions. I'm going to make a strong effort to keep my digital camera on me for photo ops. It's easier to just do it ourselves then to find legit photos we can use online. So all you Hoosiers take those photos, share them and post them! :) Missvain 00:02, 23 December 2006 (EST)
The regions for Indiana currently leave gaps and overlap—the two most basic things we strive to avoid with regional hierarchies. To the right is a rough, draft map of how I see the current scheme (except without the gaps and overlap). See this map  to help decipher which counties are which. Central Indiana in this scheme is far too large, but we can break that into pieces after agreeing on these borders. Thoughts? If there are none, I'll plunge forward with this in one week and reorganize our Indiana guides accordingly. --PeterTalk 01:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
My experience I don't really know that I've heard northern Indiana talked about as three separate regions, but it makes sense in terms of the municipalities there. You may want to slice up a Terre Haute-to-Bloomington region and name it "Southwestern Indiana;" that would take care of the huge mass that is Central Indiana. Again, I don't know that I'm familiar with anyone referring to it that way, but it makes some kind of sense, I suppose. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:33, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
OK, I've updated this now, and took the suggestion for "southwestern Indiana." I'm not so sure that this regional breakdown is optimal, but it's a whole lot better than the confused mishmash we have been using. We can always revisit it in the future, but for now I'm going to plunge forward and implement the new hierarchy. --PeterTalk 10:21, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Bah! Now I see this breakdown. I like it a lot, and a lot better than the existing one that I was just putting hard work into. I'm going to change the formula to this one, and my hunch is no one will object. If they do, we can, as always, revisit. --PeterTalk 13:40, 14 May 2009 (EDT)