Talk:Cape Cod Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

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? (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:29, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

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? (WT-en) OldPine 12:33, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

The guidelines to follow would be Project:What is an article? and Project: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. -- (WT-en) 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.(WT-en) OldPine 14:40, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

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. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 21:41, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Makes sense. (WT-en) 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 Project:Manual of style. -- (WT-en) 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 Project:Region_article_template -- (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) 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! -- (WT-en) 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. (WT-en) 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. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:28, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

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 Wikivoyage? (WT-en) OldPine 12:56, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

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

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. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 06:27, 28 December 2006 (EST)

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. - (WT-en) OldPine 11:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

With the exception of Martha's Vineyard do the sub regions Upper/Mid/Lower/Outer bring any advantage or should they be merged up into this article? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

They're geographically useful. It's a pretty long peninsula: For example, a drive from Woods Hole to Provincetown is 82 miles. Even if a decision is made to merge the articles, the subdivision of places into different areas of the cape would still be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you're asking a question, wouldn't it be better to at least respond to the initial reply before taking quick action in redirecting Cape Cod islands and repointing the "IsIn" of each Cape Cod island article directly to the parent Cape Cod article in seeming total disregard of it or tidy breadcrumb hierarchy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to go through the content in the bottom level pages here, and was wondering if the community had any appetite for consolidation? After years of automated edits, hierarchy renovations, and general entropy; these pages have become kind of hard for anyone to parse. They just don't contain much actionable content anymore. I've been chopping away at the dead stuff, and I think they're starting to look better!

Here's what I was thinking to do, very open to suggestions. I think the amount of "stuff" we have right now would really improve these articles if they were consolidated like this, but whatever everyone thinks. I don't have tons of time to throw at this, so I wouldn't start any merging without updating the bottom level articles first. Thanks all! --ButteBag (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cape Cod -> rename The Cape and The Islands, adjust content and taxonomy to better include: MV, ACK & Gosnold

Upper Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination

Bourne -> redirect to Upper Cape

Sagamore -> redirect to Upper Cape

Sandwich (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Upper Cape

Falmouth (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Upper Cape

Woods Hole -> redirect to Upper Cape

Mashpee -> redirect to Upper Cape

Mid Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination

Hyannis -> redirect to Mid Cape

Barnstable Village -> redirect to Mid Cape

Barnstable -> redirect to Mid Cape

West Barnstable -> redirect to Mid Cape

Centerville (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Mid Cape

Osterville -> redirect to Mid Cape

Marstons Mills -> redirect to Mid Cape

Cotuit -> redirect to Mid Cape

Yarmouth (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Mid Cape

Dennis -> redirect to Mid Cape

Lower Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination

Harwich (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape

Brewster (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape

Chatham (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape

Orleans (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Lower Cape

Outer Cape -> refactor as a bottom level destination

Eastham -> redirect to Outer Cape

Wellfleet -> redirect to Outer Cape

Truro (Massachusetts) -> redirect to Outer Cape

Provincetown -> no change

Cape Cod National Seashore -> no change, but clearer delineation between the park and the towns

Martha's Vineyard -> refactor as a bottom level destination (kind of is already)

Aquinnah -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Chilmark -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Edgartown -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Oak Bluffs -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Tisbury -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

West Tisbury -> redirect to Martha's Vineyard

Nantucket -> no change

Gosnold -> no change

I think status quo is the way to go here. The amount of content in an article - "see" and "do" listings above all, although "buy", "eat", "drink", and "sleep" are also important - is the deciding factor that governs whether an article can exist on its own or should be merged. And I think these articles each have about the right amount of content. They're not as long and detailed as the Boston district articles, but that's natural enough given that these are small towns, not dense urban neighborhoods. And this is also a different situation than the Long Island consolidation of some time ago, given that these are bona fide communities with their own individual (albeit somewhat interconnected) identities, rather than an endless, faceless tract of suburbia divided seemingly at random into more-or-less interchangeable municipal entities.

On the other hand, I would indeed support expanding Cape Cod's scope into a The Cape and The Islands article (perhaps with the Cape itself, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Gosnold as another layer of subregions).

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think some of it seems like a good idea, but some of the articles you want to turn into redirects are actually decent articles. These articles are nothing to write home about, but at least some of them are better than the [13,000 outline articles] on Wikivoyage. I would reorganize Martha's Vineyard but I think the rest looks okay. Selfie City (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, looking at Martha's Vineyard again I think it's best off as a bottom-level destination, but the Cape itself I'd leave alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Woods Hole, for example, is a Usable article, and I don't think it would make sense to merge it into an "Upper Cape" article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many of the articles are of a good size and those that are not could probably be made usable status. Maybe a few could be merged into one city article. I think the problem is with the sub-regions. 29 articles in a region is maybe a little large but still handleable, in fact the Cape Cod article lists most of them anyway. I propose up-merging the whole upper,outer, lower, mid Cod regions. Also need to sort out the content of Martha's Vineyard into the appropriate city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for the feedback! Seems like: "One man's too much content is another man's not enough".

Are there any policy guidelines relating to how much content an article should have? Seems like folks would be comfortable merging all the MV articles into one bottom level destination. It also seems like folks would be uncomfortable merging (for example) the four towns under Lower Cape. However, each of these two hypothetical articles would hold roughly similar amounts of content. So where should the line be drawn? Based on the different responses here, I'm assuming there aren't any guidelines.

OK, how about this scaled back idea:

• consolodate the MV articles to a single page
• redirect upper/mid/lower/outer to The Cape and The Islands, but keep the narrative framing on that region page.
• consolidate the confusing Barnstable articles: (Hyannis, Barnstable Village, West Barnstable, Centerville (Massachusetts), Osterville, Marstons Mills, Cotuit) This would at least get us down to a 1:1 article to town ratio.
• merge Woods Hole into Falmouth (in keeping with the 1:1 town:article ratio)

--ButteBag (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Organising by the administrative town boundaries makes it easier for editors that do not know the area physically to organise listings but sometimes municipality boundaries do not match the on-the-ground reality. Agree some of the redirects around Barnstaple need to be sorted out but to me Barnstable Village and Hyannis are distinct enough locations to have their own article. If towns/villages have expanded so you cannot tell where one starts and the other stops then merge the article, locations in the same administrative area but physically separated consider two article. Generally if the content would never be enough to get at least to usable status if not guide then look at merging with the neighbouring article. Another tip, if you are staying in a hotel in one location and would consider going for a meal and drink without major transport/travel effort to a restaurant in the next location article, these could be considered for merge. Martha's Vineyard is a difficult one. Permanent population of 16,000 is usually a good size for one location article but 20 miles long and visitor population of 100,000 would usually be more that one location article. Looking at the number of listings I would say there is more that one article here. If you were staying in a hotel in Oak Bluffs would you pop out for an evening drink in Chilmark? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"if you are staying in a hotel in one location and would consider going for a meal and drink without major transport/travel effort to a restaurant in the next location article, these could be considered for merge" - no, that's the kind of situation "Go next" was designed to handle. As a recent and multiple-time visitor to Cape Cod, I would again strongly caution against monkeying around too much with the geographical hierarchy, including Barnstable (for instance, no way should Hyannis be merged). Yes, the towns on the Cape are geographically small and close together, but they are very much distinct communities and subtly different from each other, and I think those differences are worth reflecting in the individual articles rather than diluting them by merging articles together. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As for Martha's Vineyard, I think the choice is between the status quo and one big article. I just find it hard to picture how, other than the current way, the island could be subdivided in a way that's meaningful to travellers and not completely arbitrary-seeming. Not to mention the fact that the island's largest population centers - Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, and Vineyard Haven - are concentrated into a relatively small geographical area, so the MV sub-article that includes those places would be much longer and more detailed than the others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's too bad there is no policy in place to address these questions. If two seasoned and experienced editors have conflicting viewpoints, what hope do the rest of us have? FWIW, my viewpoint is closer to Traveler100's. I was thinking if most of the get in/get around/go next sections would be duplicated content, those articles could be considered for merge. Or to ask it another way, why not address the "subtle differences" with a few lines of copy on a single page, instead of splitting them out onto separate pages? --ButteBag (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

After viewing Martha's Vineyard on a map, I think a reasonable proposition would be to divide the island into three sections: Edgartown, Northern Martha's Vineyard, and Western Martha's vineyard, and the rest of southern Martha's Vineyard be either categorized as western Martha's Vineyard or as part of Edgartown: I suggest that we make anything west of 41.354762-70.5520951 Edgartown Great Pond part of Western Martha's Vineyard and anything east of it part of the Edgartown article. The rest: I haven't researched yet. Selfie City (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

But that's what I meant by "meaningful to travellers and not arbitrary-seeming". "Western Martha's Vineyard" and "Northern Martha's Vineyard" are not concepts that exist anywhere outside this discussion: locals don't use those terms among themselves, tourist literature and infrastructure don't use them either, they're not likely search terms, and other than geography, there's nothing that either distinguishes those regions from each other or makes the towns within each individual region more similar to each other than to towns in other regions. These are the things you have to consider when designing a region scheme, not just tracing a line any old place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

100% agree with Andre. At least people think about the Cape in terms of upper/mid/lower/outer. --ButteBag (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had time to take another look at this, and I've implemented some of the most conservative ideas:

• Rename to "Cape Cod and The Islands". (...but I'm not sure how to do this for real)
• Copy most of Mid Cape to Barnstable, replacing a redirect. (this was just factually wrong)
• Update Cape Cod#Cities to reflect current state of WV articles. (I didn't merge anything!)

I would still strongly recommend redirecting Upper Cape, Mid Cape, Lower Cape, and Outer Cape to: Cape Cod and The Islands. Those sub-region pages are so content-free, I was easily able to incorporate it into the Cape Cod#Cities section.

Also: Barnstable is remains a mess. I would still recommend merging all the village articles there, but if folks feel strongly about special casing Hyannis, that's fine too.

Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The map doesn't show any of the regions. That's a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right now, that section violates wv:7+2. Which should stay and which should go? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply