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? -- 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. 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. -- 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 -- 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. -- Ryan 19:15, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)