YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Southwestern Colorado

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 01:14, 15 November 2009 by Bill-on-the-Hill (talk | contribs) (Subregions and counties - Finding a home for Cedaredge)
Jump to: navigation, search

Mesa Verde

From Eat:

  • Mesa Verde - Far View Terrace Navajo Hill @ Mile 15, inside Mesa Verde - 529-4444
  • Mesa Verde - Metate Room Navajo Hill @ Mile 15, inside Mesa Verde - 529-4423
  • Mesa Verde - Spruce Tree Terrace 9 miles inside Mesa Verde - 529-4521

Is "Mesa Verde" refering to the park? if so, these should be moved to the Mesa Verde National Park page... I just wasn't sure... Majnoona 16:02, 19 April 2006 (EDT)


Can we axe the counties list? I feel that this region is highly unlikely to ever be subdivided into county articles, and besides that unlikely possibility, a flat list of county names is highly irrelevant for the traveller. Texugo 23:18, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Deleted. The Counties List is too granular a breakdown for regions. WineCountryInn 12:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Cities List

Cleaning up the cities lists for all the Colorado regions. The three largest communities, Delta, Gunnison and Montrose are not represented here, and the list is highly centered on the southwestern part of the region. I vote that we replace Creede, Mancos and Dolores with these three towns. WineCountryInn 12:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Replaced Creede, Mancos and Dolores with Montrose, Gunnison and Ouray. WineCountryInn 21:21, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Subregions and counties - Finding a home for Cedaredge

I know that the counties were removed from this region, but can someone create some sub regions or suggest better names for regions that the counties, so that I don't need to foist places like the orphan page Cedaredge onto an article that has a full list of bigger places. - Huttite 08:50, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Quick & dirty illustration
Individual county pages would not make for a very good subdivision—there are too many, and each on its own would have extremely little content. But I agree that adding tiny outline cities to the main list of such a good region article would be undesirable. I'll take a stab at a division, keeping in mind my limited knowledge of the region, but I'm sure Bill would know better how best to do this:
Does that look plausible? --Peter Talk 00:05, 14 November 2009 (EST)
It's plausible (with some fine tuning) at first glance, but strikes me as gilding the lily. Population centers in this region are few and far between, with repeats of the orphaned Cedaredge rather unlikely. If Wikitravel stressed "outdoors" attractions, a subdivision would certainly be justified; this region is a hiker's/RVer's/river-runner's paradise and has very distinct sub-regional flavors worth differentiating. With a focus more "urban" in nature, I don't see the value added. But I'll look at these regions and make some comments by the end of the weekend. (BTW, make sure to include the dashes in my handle.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:10, 14 November 2009 (EST)