Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Talk:Cape Cod

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 22:13, 7 January 2012 by Wrh2 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Regional Listings vs Town Listings[edit]

There's a lot of information on this page, but I think the vast majority of the lisitings need to move to the specific city pages. As a regional page, Cape Cod should just have a high-level overview of what the region has to offer in terms of restaurants, hotels, etc.

I'm also not sure what to do about the multiple listings of "Bistro At Crowne Pointe" -- I guess it belongs in more than one section, but it starts to look spamy. Should it just be listed once? Majnoona 16:58, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)

Yes, any sleep listing should be listed in the town I think. We can't possibly accomodate all the lodging operators here on the regional page. OldPine 09:21, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Grasping for a guideline to use here.

  • Cape Cod Baseball League is obviously regional... they play in 10 different Cape towns.
  • Attractions or businesses using "Cape Cod" in their name?? The art museum displays only Cape art, so that is probably "regional". The Natural History museum is about Cape ecosystems, so fine. Cape Cod Potato Chips? Cape Cod Winery? Not sure. They do rather become part of the Cape Cod experience.
  • Should it just be a highlights page? I think that degenerates as there is no clear place to draw the line. OldPine 09:21, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
Use the Cape Cod article for listings that are regional only, however, also highlight various must see sights and must do activities and then provide a link to the article/city that the listing is listed in. For example in Clermont County (Ohio) I list the birthplace of Ulysees S. Grant, but I don't provide a link to the city the house is located in, because there are just over 130 people in that town and there is no point in starting an article for that town. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:29, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Towns & Villages[edit]

I have a concern here that this region is listing every village on Cape Cod. For instance, in Bourne, a town that has nine villages, many of them, if not all, are listed on the Cape Cod page. Although many have their own flavor and could stand alone, some do not. Many times I'm not sure whether to build the town with content or the village. How does that resolve? OldPine 12:33, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

The guidelines to follow would be Wikitravel:What is an article? and Wikitravel:The traveller comes first. The usefulness of the guides diminishes if they become too fine-grained, so if the villages are better addressed within the context of the containing town article, my opinion would be to put information in the town article and then create redirects back to the town article for each village. If in the future village articles are needed then things can always be further sub-divided. The situation sounds similar to districts within large cities - just because there is a "Little Italy" in Cleveland doesn't mean it gets its own article.
That's just my opinion though, I'll leave it to those who know more about the area to make a more educated judgment. -- Ryan 13:37, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I removed references in the regional town listing for a bunch of small places and villages that can be covered in their town page. I'm not sure what a redirect involves, but most that I deleted from the Cape Cod listing didn't have outlines or anything. Requesting deletion of Bass River. A question remains with how to handle the town of Barnstable, which is a large area and whose villages are diverse and treated as if they were separate towns in many ways.
I am also thinking that Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, should be articled as Islands, not towns, and their towns listed in the article (maybe even as outline sections?). A week on either island and you can do it all.OldPine 14:40, 2 June 2006 (EDT)


Regions and towns[edit]

I have changed this back to the standard template and put back Regions and Cities. But the list of cities is too large and some of the smaller ones need to be moved to region articles leaving only 6 to 8 larger or more important on the main page. This article is coming along real good. We just need to keep to our manual of style and templates for articles. Thanks for all the good work. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 21:41, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Makes sense. OldPine 21:43, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
I liked the old breakdown as it existed in this revision, with the region followed by cities in that region. Would it be possible to keep the region heading with a list of regions, but then under "cities" use the format from that revision? That still seems to be in the spirit of the Wikitravel:Manual of style. -- Ryan 22:13, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
It seems that the description given for each of the regions could have one or two of the more important cities, towns or villages mentioned, but it seems to me it would be redundant to show them both in the region description and again in cities and would divert from the MoS if different cities were mentioned in the Region section then those in the Cities section. See Wikitravel:Region_article_template -- Tom Holland (xltel) 22:27, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
After working through the changes, I think I agree with Ryan. Unlike some regions, the towns here all have a pretty similar importance as they all get flooded with tourists. If there were to be a reversion, I'd delete the description that references the "most popular" towns, eliminating the redundancy. I'm new to the program, so I'm reluctant to say much, but dividing this down finely in a hierarchy seems to me to make it harder for the traveller. He now has to go into every region within the region to see every town. Plus the Uppper, Mid, Lower, Outer are pretty useless as far as article production goes. Just MHO. OldPine 23:04, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
I took a stab at breaking up the cities list by region, without repeating the region description. Does that seem OK? To me it's easier to read, and provides some context about where these cities are without turning things into one long list. Feel free to revert if it still seems non-MOS. -- Ryan 23:20, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
Yeah, I like that! It works on a number of levels. Looking at the towns gives you a path to look at a group of them by giving everyone a path to the region. Good job! Much better then what I did! -- Tom Holland (xltel) 07:52, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
I concur - Way to go, Ryan. Do the towns need to have isIn to the Upper/Lower/Mid etc.? I don't hate it the way it is now with them in Cape Cod. OldPine 13:47, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
Usually isIn is made as specific as possible, so it would be better if they were set to the sub-region of Cape Cod. Theoretically in the future there will be a capability to view all travel guides for a region, so if someone wanted to print a guide for the Upper Cape then isIn would be the tag that shows what articles are included. -- Ryan 14:28, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Trails Resource - How to use?[edit]

I found this site: http://www.cctrails.org/ that has extensive itineraries for hikes, walks, biking etc., and thought it might be a good regional link. They do list other travel guides, but not us. Is a Cape Cod regional listing a good idea, or should I just "absorb" their information and try to refine where possible? Do we ever request listings of Wikitravel? OldPine 12:56, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Not quite sure I'm understanding - are you asking if they should list Wikitravel as a resource, or if we should list them? In general it's best not to link to other travel guides from Wikitravel (Wikitravel:External links). Including descriptions of trails and such within Wikitravel articles is generally a good thing, however. -- Ryan 19:37, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Cape Cod Travel Directories - Can they be used?[edit]

I know that this has been discussed, is there a place that travel directories can be listed for example http://www.cape-cod.org on the travel page for Cape Cod?

Our policy does not allow links to external travel guides. You can see the policy at external links. We prefer to have the information in our guide and not link to outside guides. Our external links are kept to a minimum overall. The only link to external travel guides that are allowed is to the "Official" travel webpage for the site and side links that we do to World66, Dmoz and Wikipedia. Hope this helps to clear the policy. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 06:27, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Eat Revisions[edit]

Hello OldPine. I was doing a group project for a writing class at the beginning of March. For our project we edited this page. One group member was responsible for "Stay," one for "Drink," and I had "Eat." You changed any edits we made within minutes of us making them. Now that it is portfolio time for this class, I was just wondering why you changed our (my) stuff back? What did I do wrong in the Eat section? 24.250.40.66 04:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

As I explained in the change summary, Eat and Drink sections in the region article provide an overview of the subject. Listings belong in the city/town articles. Mention of a clearly reknowned place and its town (such as "French Laundry" in Yountville being mentioned in the Napa Valley article is likely permissable, but not listings with addresses and phones. "Stay" or as is our standard "Sleep" sections are not part of the region template at all, and with a few exceptions is not used, or if it is, it is for an overview. - OldPine 11:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages