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:Gutsche. -- Colin 22:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)
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".
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. -- 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...
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. -- 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? 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 Wikitravel: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 Wikitravel: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. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Apparently not; I've moved it. 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 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.
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.