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

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Texas"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sub-regions 2)
m (Sub-regions 2)
Line 169: Line 169:
  
 
::Nope, [[7+2|this policy]] is about dividing geographic units, per the section title, and as the article title would suggest.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::Nope, [[7+2|this policy]] is about dividing geographic units, per the section title, and as the article title would suggest.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::I thought I said it above, but I either was unaware of or misunderstood the policy.  I realize that you're entirely right about it.  [[User:Jordanmills|Jordanmills]] 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
Can we agree that, at least in the cases where the destinations already overwhelm the top-level region, it would be easier to work with what I've already done, changing if necessary, than it is to send it all back to the drawing board and wait for consensus? For example, I can agree that we ought to change "German Hill Country" to something else, at which time the sorting work I've already done is still valid, and I can simply search for "German Hill Country" and change the descriptions of everything that comes up. The other approach is what Jordanmills has already started to do just now, which is revert all the descriptions back to the parent region and blank the previous subregions from the parent region article, without even suggesting an alternative. In this case the sorting work will have to be done over from scratch. I'd really like to preserve all the infrastructure and interlinking I've done so far-- I certainly don't mind it being changed later if a better idea comes along, but I see no reason for already-formed subdivisions to be blanked to go back to an overcrowded region article that doesn't even link to half the destinations. In this particular case nobody has even voiced any specific problem with the other two subregion that were blanked. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 04:07, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 
Can we agree that, at least in the cases where the destinations already overwhelm the top-level region, it would be easier to work with what I've already done, changing if necessary, than it is to send it all back to the drawing board and wait for consensus? For example, I can agree that we ought to change "German Hill Country" to something else, at which time the sorting work I've already done is still valid, and I can simply search for "German Hill Country" and change the descriptions of everything that comes up. The other approach is what Jordanmills has already started to do just now, which is revert all the descriptions back to the parent region and blank the previous subregions from the parent region article, without even suggesting an alternative. In this case the sorting work will have to be done over from scratch. I'd really like to preserve all the infrastructure and interlinking I've done so far-- I certainly don't mind it being changed later if a better idea comes along, but I see no reason for already-formed subdivisions to be blanked to go back to an overcrowded region article that doesn't even link to half the destinations. In this particular case nobody has even voiced any specific problem with the other two subregion that were blanked. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 04:07, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Line 176: Line 178:
  
 
::What's more, Jordan, you also have yet to make any objections to the work Texugo has done&mdash;insofar far as I understand, your objection is that you contend that the 7 top-level Texas divisions should not be subdivided. That is not an objection to the work Texugo has done, that is an objection to our policy. Thus it would be appropriate to challenge the [[Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy]] policy at [[Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy]], since that position is in opposition to policy. If the problem is with the existing regional structure, and not with the general policy of regional hierarchies, you should provide specific critiques of and suggestions for that structure, and keep these critiques confined to talk pages for the meantime, since there clearly is a controversy.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::What's more, Jordan, you also have yet to make any objections to the work Texugo has done&mdash;insofar far as I understand, your objection is that you contend that the 7 top-level Texas divisions should not be subdivided. That is not an objection to the work Texugo has done, that is an objection to our policy. Thus it would be appropriate to challenge the [[Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy]] policy at [[Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy]], since that position is in opposition to policy. If the problem is with the existing regional structure, and not with the general policy of regional hierarchies, you should provide specific critiques of and suggestions for that structure, and keep these critiques confined to talk pages for the meantime, since there clearly is a controversy.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::I thought I was clear about a few points.  1, the names are inaccurate (either refer to a different location, or are inaccurately drawn), 2, the subdivisions are unnecessary (the list was padded with stubs for locations of dubious travel merit), 3, while you cite "plunge ahead", you don't cite the corralary that has the next user correcting or removing incorrect information.  The required changes affect several or many regions, and I think that discussing them on Talk:Texas is appropriate. [[User:Jordanmills|Jordanmills]] 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:43, 10 April 2008

Contents

Get out - Cruise Ships

I think the cruise ships should not be listed here in the state section but in their specific ports, under that get out section. You could indicate which shipping lines operate out of which port, though. Also there should not be links to unwritten Cruise ship articles. It is easy to create links once an article is being written. -- Huttite 17:37, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)

Regions?

Uh, guys. Whomever named the regions and started the "South Texas Plains" page have got it wrong. Even the map is a little skewed... The Southern portion of Texas is called the "Rio Grande Valley" or "The Valley" by most folks.

  • Panhandle & South Plains
  • Heart O' Texas or Texas Heartland (west-central, San Angelo, etc.)
  • Hill Country (central, Ausin & San Antonio)
  • South Texas (sometimes including San Antonio...depends on who you talk to or which TV anchor is talking)
  • North Texas (The DF/W metroplex)
  • East Texas (including Houston on up to Beaumont and Texarkana)
  • West Texas (Midland-Odessa aka Permian Basin westward to El Paso)
  • Rio Grand Valley (Brownsville to Harlingen, Laredo and Del Rio are South Texas)
  • Gulf Coast (From Louisiana down to Brownsville - again which region any city belongs to is up to the which phone book, newspaper or TV news anchor is talking)

-- Mike 18:47, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)

I believe the regions we're using come from the official Texas visitors guide. I agree that regions are kind of a fluid concept, but we do have to pick some scheme and stick with it. If you think yours is more reasonable and more Texans and visitors will understand it, please, plunge forward! --Evan 08:26, 26 Nov 2005 (EST)
I added it and yes I got it from the official Texas site. The region scheme is also used on several other Texas tourism sites so I didn't just arbatrarrly use it.Troy34 17:46, 28 March 2006 (EST)

Looking for Information

I'm going to be visiting Corpus Christi next april as part of the USBC National bowling tournament. This will bring approximately 65,000 people to Corpus Christi between February and June. What is there to see in the area and what is the best way to get around???

Any info would help.

Dallas number one?

I can not believe I even need to explain my self. I lived in Texas most of my life. Texas Monthly almost always lists San Antonio as the top destination. If you think it is the top destination please list your reasons below. Dallas is in the 10 ten maybe but not even in the top 5. --Texas Web Scout 13:51, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Dude, I'm not asking you to explain yourself (btw that's some ego you have), I simply suggested you add something instead of deleting a line you don't agree with and leaving the city by itself with nothing there. I got that line from the Texas tourism site, but if it's wrong fine. Personally I don't care where it ranks, I just couldn't think of anything better since Dallas has a Mayor that is apparently dead set on running any attractions out of town.Troy34 18:01, 28 March 2006 (EST)
I am sorry I did not mean to rude or to have a ego. I am just saying what most people from Texas know. Sorry you thought that I have had an attitude but I don't. -Texas Web Scout 13:00, 30 March 2006 (EST)
You've lived in Texas most of your life, i've lived here all my life, and believe me I never heard that San Antonio was the most popular destination. But like i said, i don't really care where it ranks, I was just looking for filler. -- Troy34 15:38, 30 March 2006 (EST)
Another lifelong Texas resident here, and from what I know, San Antonio is far more popular as a tourism/vacation destination, whereas Dallas is more of a business destination. If I had to make a call, I'd say that San Antone is far more visited. You know, just to fan some year-old flames. :) Jordanmills 13:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I've never lived in Texas, so my credentials are right out there. In terms of overseas visitors, it's Houston. [1] Not that I'm helping provide filler, but I thought it was a pretty cool table. Jonboy 15:47, 30 March 2006 (EST)
Thanks Johnboy. I'm not 100% certain but i think the Texas Monthy ranking only takes in to account Texas Travellers, not people from out of state. Nor do i think it takes into account Business travellers. I'm sure Houston would be #1 on all accounts. But we shouldn't worry about rankings on here anyway, each destination should stand on it's own merrit. - Troy34 00:47, 31 March 2006 (EST)
Living in Houston all my life, I can tell you that for US visitors it is rather dull, but for International visitors it's a different ball game. If you're from the states, San Antonio is the cliche tourist stop, but if you are lookig for more classy and undiscovered tresures, head to Dallas or Houston. 216.40.228.6 10:26, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Cities list

On request (I had actually glossed over the number the day before), I reduced the list of cities to policy limit of nine. Of course, I didn't have much standard to go by outside of listing the obligatory Houston, DFW, Austin, and SA, so I'm sure my method (where there is any) is quite subjective. Of course Texas is HUGE, and it will necessarily push the top limits of the list policy, but it's the policy. So I figured I could open up a discussion on how to improve on my initial pruning. Maybe we could list one or two from each region, then move the region section to after the cities section, and list about five representative cities from each region? Just a blind shot, but I feel shackled trying to represent my home state with such a small selection (then again, anybody might feel that way of their home). Any help? Jordanmills 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that looks pretty good... what you did is best... get it down to nine, even if it's not the perfect nine... and then people will eventually come along to talk about why x is there instead of y. I've been part of a few of these conversations, most notably for India... and if we can come to a consensus on 9 for that, then anything is possible! – cacahuate talk 23:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Cities map

I'm thinking whoever made this map must be from Arlington. I can't really think of any special reason for it to be highlighted on this map. The inclusion of Fort Stockton and Fredericksburg is fairly iffy as well, as they are both tiny and the average Texan probably couldn't even tell you where they are. Texugo 23:14, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I'm guessing you're referring to one of my photos, since my stats link here (however, even if you aren't, this info is probably still valid). That "Arlington" is due to Yahoo Maps - apparently, there is an Arlington section of Corpus Christi. I noticed it myself, and was not able to determine how to change it without giving it a false location on the map. --Qnr 21:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
I was simply suggesting that it doesn't deserve to be on the map in the first place... Texugo 00:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Lead image

OK, Texas definitely needs a lead image. I'm certainly no expert, but here are a few suggestions from flickr: 1, 2, 3. Any other suggestions? --Peter Talk 01:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)

You're right. I could support number 2 perhaps but I'd like to see something a little more scenic, maybe Palo Duro Canyon or Big Bend. Texugo 01:52, 23 February 2008 (EST)
How about this one? I had some fun around Amarillo two weeks ago ;) --Peter Talk 02:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Hey, and here are some nice ones of Big Bend. --Peter Talk 04:36, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Oh yeah? That's my home turf-- my hometown is about 50 miles east of Amarillo. Did you happen to get any info to spruce up the Palo Duro Canyon article? Anyway, of the nominations so far, I like the lighthouse one and the Big Bend one with the tree in the foreground. Texugo 05:53, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Unfortunately, my info on Palo Duro is bound to be pretty sparse—I only spent a half day there. But then again, the article is pretty empty, so I should be able to add something.
I'll suggest another photo of mine of Palo Duro that turned out pretty well. I'll abstain from actually picking the lead one, though, since my photos are in the running ;) --Peter Talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Many of the suggestions are good, but my vote is for this one because the composition is outstanding, and the photo really communicates expansive!, and that, to me, is what Texas is all about. Texugo 03:41, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Sounds good, agreed that Texas is all about expansiveness, and done. --Peter Talk 00:41, 7 March 2008 (EST)

GLBT?

Okay really? I think this section is unnecessary and mostly false.

I agree with the mostly false thing. I'll reduce and rework it. Texugo 22:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)


Subregions

To answer Jordanmill's question of how I came up with the sub-regions.. I feel confident that the subregions for the Panhandle, the Hill Country and Big Bend Country are accurate. I have personal knowledge of the areas, and I checked my own breakdown against anything I could find in Texas tourism websites, official and non-official, and there doesn't seem to be much of any alternative.

For the Prairies and Lakes region, where I lived for ten years, I didn't know what to do because people in that region themselves don't have any particular way of breaking up the region (Indeed, most people have never heard the term "Prairies and Lakes Region" either, but that's how the official breakdown goes). When talking about another part of the region people just say "it's over by Sulphur Springs" or "it's down by Bryan-College Station" or whatever. Given that, I resorted to geography, researching on a number of sites, mostly state park services site or sites on the subject at the UT website, and I found that geographically the area divides itself into roughly three equal bands running vaguely southwest to northeast: Cross Timbers, Blackland Prairie, and Post Oak Savannah. I had never heard of the last two of these either, but once I thought about it, each of those areas does have a distinct feel to it, and it seems as logical a way to divide it up as any, so I went with it.

For the Piney Woods section, the only one I'm sure should be there is Deep East Texas, though I'm not exactly sure how to define the boundaries of it. I took it to be vaguely the lower third of the region, then set out looking for ways to define the rest. Central Piney Woods seems logical enough, and I found a few documents referring to Tyler and Nacogdoches as being in Central East Texas or the Central Piney Woods. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses those terms or not, but we need to choose something. Then for the upper third I couldn't come up with anything usable except for "Ark-La-Tex", but didn't use that because technically that region includes portions of the three respective states, so I went with "Northeastern Texas" instead, for lack of better options.

For the Gulf Coast region, I knew that Brownsville area folk refer to their region as the Rio Grande Valley, so I put that first. Beyond that I had no clue. If you know of a better way to break it down, please propose something. I searched on a number of sites for any agreed upon way of breaking it down, and couldn't even find any definitive geographic way to break it down except this: Looking at a map, two thirds of the region have barrier islands, the other third, all east of Houston, has a landscape much more like the bayous of Louisiana, so I just went with that: Rio Grande Valley, South Barrier Coast, North Barrier Coast, Bayous. If you know of any better way to break down the Gulf Coast Region so that it covers everything with clear boundaries and no overlap, please suggest it.

Similarly, for the South Texas Plains area, I am at a complete loss as far as region names which are in common parlance. I haven't even attempted to divide it up yet, though it's big enough I think it needs to be divided into at least three areas, probably something like Central, Upper Rio Grande, and Lower Rio Grande.

Again, any suggestions would be appreciated. If there is something you want to contest, or it have any comment or suggestion, let's begin on the discussion page of that respective region article, not here. Thanks! Texugo 00:05, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

(After which point, Jordanmills tried to revert all the work I've done over the last month without replying, sending everything back into the 7 mass macroregions of the state, and so began the following conversation, copied from our user talk pages):

Um, OK, look. This is NOT the way to deal with this. I have spent a GREAT deal of time trying to come up with a way to subdivide these regions, and I offered up a very lengthy explanation of the process on the Talk:Texas page. Why do you feel the need to revert all my hard work without suggesting something better or at least discussing?? I am offended honestly, and when I have time tomorrow it's all going back the way I had it. Texugo 12:05, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, you seriously need to stop reverting my region edits, especially if you're not going to discuss it. Jordanmills 12:09, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Excuse me?? I gave everyone a lengthy explanation of my breakdown of sub-regions here. I spent 3 or 4 weeks working on this, and the 7 macro-regions of Texas really need to be broken down because each is like the size of Pennsylvania and there are far too many towns to be covered in one region article. Before you go eliminating my subdivisions and going back to what we had before, it is you that need to discuss and suggest something better. Texugo 12:21, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Well now you finally talk. I tried to discuss it, and you weren't inclined to until I posted in the Travellers' pubThe subdivisions are arbitrary, oddly named, and comletely unknown. It confuses locals, let alone travelers, and shouldn't be here. Jordanmills 12:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, before you ever started this revert business, I explained my scheme thoroughly (above). And I'm sorry but you know, I grew up on the High Plains. Everyone there knows what it is. Businesses are named after it, 806 area code phone book says it, news agencies and radio stations use the phrase regularly. Llano Estacado area, same thing. Edwards Plateau, Permian Basin too. Fact one is that the seven official regions need to be divided up somehow. If you don't like how I've done it so far, fine, suggest something better. But don't send the whole mess back to the drawing board without suggesting a better way.Texugo 12:34, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Hi, I came by in response to the request in the Traveller's Pub. First, I'm grateful to both Texugo and Jordanmills for their willingness to pay attention to the regional structure of Wikitravel. It's big, difficult work, but very important. It looks like what's going on is that Texugo has a suggestion for how to improve the second-level regions for Texas, which he's been working on for a month. It's a bit surprising for me not to see a month's worth of discussion here at Talk:Texas about the revision. The first discussion I see is from April 5, and my understanding is that the edits and reverts in question happened between April 5 and 7. When I did something similar (see Talk:Washington (state)#Proposal to eliminate counties from hierarchy), we came up with a complete description of changes on the Talk page, posted a notice of the proposal at Travellers' Pub, left it open for a couple of weeks for comment, and only then began the changes. To give an idea of time scale, this project was proposed on May 28, 2007, started on June 9, 2007, and completed on September 17, 2007. Could I suggest that the two of you put the revisions on hold, and discuss the changes here (or in the 2nd-level region Talk pages) until you have consensus, and have given a couple of weeks for comments? JimDeLaHunt 13:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
You're right about putting it on hold until we reach consensus. I've stopped my part, though a few of the queued edits will show up as happening after Texugo started to reply. They should be long purged by now though. Jordanmills 13:10, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Sub-regions 2

Ok. What happened was that before March 6, there were no second level regions at all for Texas, only seven large official regions each about the size of Pennsylvania, far too large to hold everything they contain. So I plunged forward and began slowly subdividing piece-by-piece based not only on my personal experiences but also a great deal of web research on Texas sites beginning with the official tourism page, Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Texas Highways magazine, [TourTexas and TexasEscapes, and usually ending up with official regional and city tourism webpages and local newspaper sites. As explained above, some breakdowns are pretty cut-and-dried, ingrained in local parlance (e.g. High Plains, Llano Estacado, Trans-Pecos, etc.), while others are rarely ever regionified by the locals (e.g. the Prairies and Lakes region, the South Texas Plains, etc.). However, we obviously need to choose some way to break each region down for organizational purposes, so I've done the best I can so far. This is basically how it stands so far:

TXsubregions.png
The Panhandle is a roughly north-west-east-south arrangement:
  • High Plains, about 20 counties. From where the Red River hits Oklahoma, cut due west until you've sliced off the rectangular top of the state.
  • Llano Estacado, about 19 counties. The Staked Plains, delimited by where the caprocks fall off into the central plains, which runs approximately north-south from Caprock Canyons State Park to a little east of Snyder.
  • North Central Plains, about 26 counties. Everything east of the above dividing line, up to where the official Panhandle designation ends.
  • Northern Edwards Plateau, about 15 counties. The southernmost portion of the official Panhandle region. (The other parts of the plateau are better known as Hill Country and the Permian Basin).
The Prairies and Lakes are divided into 3 bands which run roughly northeast to southwest, with the DFW metroplex sandwiched between:
Piney Woods are in a north-central-south arrangement:
Gulf Coast
The South Texas Plains are not yet subdivided but I have proposed the following 3 subregions:
Hill Country
  • German Hill Country - Eastern portion with many towns of German heritage, plus the Austin metropolitan area.
  • River Region, about 7 counties. Canyon region focused around Uvalde County, carved by the Sabinal, Leona, Frio, Dry Frio, and Nueces Rivers.
  • West Hill Country, about 10 counties.
Big Bend Country is divided in only two regions, as the population centers there are few and far between.
TXsubregions.png

Texugo 22:05, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

It's unnecesarily complicated, confusing, and mostly inaccurate. There's really no need to keep creating new topics on new discussion pages for it either. Jordanmills 22:17, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you saying the seven large regions don't need to be broken down? I would implore you to be more specific and constructive in your criticism. What is complicated about it? Where do you get confused? What is inaccurate about it? I'm trying to make it as accurate and useful as possible. What do you suggest instead?? Texugo 22:21, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
That is, in part, exactly what I'm saying. I've already said it twice, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I suggest leaving it alone and not trying to enforce arbitrary naming systems. Jordanmills 01:46, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I like what you've done with West Texas and North Texas, and I think you're on the right track with the south and the Gulf Coast, but 'German Hill Country' seems off to me. I know about the German heritage, but that's not really descriptive of what's there - particularly with respect to Austin. Gorilla Jones 23:15, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, you're right. German Hill Country proper wouldn't include Austin, yet the Austin area isn't really big enough to make its own subregion article, and I think it's too much on the edge of the region to call this "Capitol Region" or whatever. Maybe just "Central (Hill Country)" or something along those lines? Texugo 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the last thing Jordanmills wrote above: The 7 main regions are huge and contain too many articles to manage in one spot-- For example, the Panhandle already includes at least 46 destinations, and the Hill Country already has at least 38. When that becomes the case, it's time to subdivide, as is usual Wikitravel protocol. How else do you propose to manage so many articles in a usable manner? Texugo 03:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It is our well-established policy to subdivide regions when the cities lists grow too long (more than 9, actually). Jordan, if you disagree with that policy, you should contest the policy itself at Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy. And while it is nice to have the Texas regional hierarchy documented here, it might be more useful to discuss individual top-level region subdivisions at each top-level region talk page (to keep the discussion focused on the naming, boundary lines, etc.).
My feeling on this is that the top-level regions did need to be broken down, and we're lucky to have had Texugo put some hard, thoughtful work into the subdivisions. For me these subdivisions seem more informative than confusing—that map alone tells a lot about the geo-travel nature of the state. I can't comment too much on the individual subdivisions, since my knowledge of Texas begins and ends on the High Plains. I'm sure some of these could be refined in terms of naming and borders, and German Hill Country could probably be renamed simply Central Texas, but I do think we should keep the discussion focused on specifics. --Peter Talk 10:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Does that count stub articles created specifically to fill out the "list"? At any rate, per the policy listed there, the seven major regions of the state ARE the subregions. At any rate, the 7+-2 rule is for lists, and so the list only shows the most list-worthy of a much larger number. If it grows too long, you cut items from the list, you don't create a new list next to the first.
Part of the problem is that what you're getting out of the sub-sub-regions is largely incorrect and asking for one by name will often get a local to direct you elsewhere. Jordanmills 16:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
First, lets please not make assumptions about intentions—assuming good faith is the basic cornerstone of all collaborative work on wikis. I'm pretty sure it's been at least general practice (and quite possibly enshrined in policy somewhere) that we encourage people to create new outline articles for valid destinations, in the hopes that that stub article will invite contributors to fill it out in the future. And per policy, the decision to subdivide regions like the Panhandle is clear-cut, given how large a territory it is, and how many linked destination articles had accumulated.
And I think you might have misunderstood some of the policy I linked, which I suppose in turn might benefit from some clarification edits. Per Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy, all regions are subregions of some other region (with the exception of continent articles at the top). There's no distinction between a "region" and a "subregion" except in context. And the policy is clear on that next point: you do not cut items from lists (and thereby create orphan articles), you "sub-divide the group into subgroups, each of which has up to 7±2 things in it." Most states in the US have already been subdivided beyond the first cut of top-level regions, and I'd venture a new level of subregions was pretty overdue for Texas.
Clearly, you have some good local knowledge of Texan travel-geography—I think Texugo is off to a great start on the second cut of Texas regions, but I'd encourage you to add your knowledge and suggest specific revisions where you see specific inaccuracies. Mere general assertions that it is confusing or inaccurate doesn't help us refine or improve the guide, and certainly won't help us reach a consensus. For that, we'll need detailed arguments on specifics. --Peter Talk 17:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
It looks like I missed the 7+-2 bit there. I always understood it to only apply to lists. But do you really want me to go to each sub-sub-region and discuss the merits of its existance? Especially when the person that made the changes seemed to create a bunch of empty stubs to justify it. I would think that the person trying to enforce the changes is the one that should be justifying it. Also, I didn't orphan the articles, I was careful to return them to their regions. Jordanmills 22:39, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Again, please assume good faith. Under such a (very reasonable) assumption of good faith, Texugo was merely trying to best organize content, present and future, and expanding our coverage of Texas. If your objection is to the existence of these regional subdivisions, that is against current policy, and you would need to create a consensus to get that changed. --Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything worthwhile about Texas, but I do know a bit about Wikitravel and breaking a US State into traveller-focussed regions. I agree with Peter that 1. 'There's no distinction between a "region" and a "subregion" except in context', 2. ' you do not cut items... you "sub-divide..."', and 3. 'I'd venture a new level of subregions was pretty overdue for Texas.' It looks to me like some regions, e.g. Panhandle (Texas) had more than enough of content, so it's a good time for subdivision. Other regions, like Piney Woods and South Texas Plains, haven't overwhelmed the top level article yet. It might be OK for now to put a proposal in the Talk pages about what next-level region to use when the time comes, but don't enact a subdivision now. I continue to applaud both User:Texugo and User:Jordanmills for your contributions of energy and knowledge to Wikitravel's structure. Texugo, you were right to Wikitravel:Plunge forward. And wow, that's a nicely-illustrated map of Texas regions there. I think each of you had an opportunity to communicate a little bit more before taking wide-spread action. I hope all the Texas experts can come up with a consensus on region names and boundaries, because this subdivision looks like it will make the Texas coverage more manageable for travellers, and that's what it's all about. JimDeLaHunt 20:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

About the 2. ' you do not cut items... you "sub-divide...", look above at "cities list". I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about cutting articles or content, I'm talking about about the 7+-2 rule applying to lists. Jordanmills 22:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Nope, this policy is about dividing geographic units, per the section title, and as the article title would suggest. --Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought I said it above, but I either was unaware of or misunderstood the policy. I realize that you're entirely right about it. Jordanmills 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Can we agree that, at least in the cases where the destinations already overwhelm the top-level region, it would be easier to work with what I've already done, changing if necessary, than it is to send it all back to the drawing board and wait for consensus? For example, I can agree that we ought to change "German Hill Country" to something else, at which time the sorting work I've already done is still valid, and I can simply search for "German Hill Country" and change the descriptions of everything that comes up. The other approach is what Jordanmills has already started to do just now, which is revert all the descriptions back to the parent region and blank the previous subregions from the parent region article, without even suggesting an alternative. In this case the sorting work will have to be done over from scratch. I'd really like to preserve all the infrastructure and interlinking I've done so far-- I certainly don't mind it being changed later if a better idea comes along, but I see no reason for already-formed subdivisions to be blanked to go back to an overcrowded region article that doesn't even link to half the destinations. In this particular case nobody has even voiced any specific problem with the other two subregion that were blanked. Texugo 04:07, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You should have sought consensus before making sweeping changes into your own personal system. It's going to be better (read a lot less confusing for a the traveler) to have a slightly longer list of children than it is to have an arbitrary and unique system of subdivisions that will just wind up getting them lost, at least until we all (or most) agree on something. Jordanmills 16:18, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Just in case I wasn't clear before, I don't think its appropriate to revert the existing order, and further changes should be made only after discussing them. We discuss when there is controversy per Wikitravel:Consensus. The massive revert of all the work Texugo did (which was fully in line with policy) was inappropriate, and definitely should not continue. The absence of objections was enough to justify the work Texugo was doing, and moreover, I myself urged him along with the project.
What's more, Jordan, you also have yet to make any objections to the work Texugo has done—insofar far as I understand, your objection is that you contend that the 7 top-level Texas divisions should not be subdivided. That is not an objection to the work Texugo has done, that is an objection to our policy. Thus it would be appropriate to challenge the Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy policy at Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy, since that position is in opposition to policy. If the problem is with the existing regional structure, and not with the general policy of regional hierarchies, you should provide specific critiques of and suggestions for that structure, and keep these critiques confined to talk pages for the meantime, since there clearly is a controversy. --Peter Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought I was clear about a few points. 1, the names are inaccurate (either refer to a different location, or are inaccurately drawn), 2, the subdivisions are unnecessary (the list was padded with stubs for locations of dubious travel merit), 3, while you cite "plunge ahead", you don't cite the corralary that has the next user correcting or removing incorrect information. The required changes affect several or many regions, and I think that discussing them on Talk:Texas is appropriate. Jordanmills 21:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages