Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
A bit of a problem with the regionification scheme for this state - the regions are based on official tourism regions, but as you can see from the map below, they do not cover the entire state, and thus are unsuitable for top level regions:
So... We can perhaps use the some of above as second-level regions if necessary, but for the top-level regions, I think it would be better to use the official "mesoregions", as shown in the second map:
If nobody has any objections, I'm soon going to make this change, and hopefully adapt that map to make a wikivoyage-style map. Anyone have any comments? Texugo (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK. I have plunged forward here. I went ahead and put the second map in the article as well, so we have something at least. Perhaps I will have time to adapt it into a WV-style map one day soon.Texugo (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, maybe the South littoral should be subdivided as the familiar "Coasts" that are already in use touristically; but it's not crucial or urgent at this moment IMHO. 200.252.135.7421:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking about that too, dividing, not at the top level, but subdividing the South section, but, I don't know what to do with those areas which are not actually on the coast. Would it actually make sense to extend Whale Coast, etc. (see first map above) all the way across to the western border, including those other towns that are not even on the coast? Texugo (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it's best to leave those inner cities at the upper South article. Not many of them have much touristic importance anyway. (200.252...)
I'm not sure that it jives well with our typical subdivision scheme to subdivide some parts and leaves the rest under the parent article. At any rate, I did leave the 4 southern coast articles as redirects to South (Bahia), with the coast destination grouped under the 4 headings. I suppose that is probably good enough for now. Texugo (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's obviously inappropriate to have any specific listings at the statewide level, but just in case these aren't listed in some other article and merit moving there, here goes:
Butterfly House, Rodovia BR-030, KM 14 - Praia de Cassange, Marau - BA, 45520-000, Brazil, ☏ +55 73 9915-4113, reservas@butterflyhousebahia.com.br. Eco-resort 250km south of Salvador, boasting eight beautiful villas, a palm-enshrouded swimming pool, gastronomic restaurant, family playroom and acres of tropical gardens sprinkled with hammocks and bamboo recliners.
| name=Bahia Beach house Rentals | url=http://www.bahiabeach.net | email=info@bahiabeach.net
| address=Atelier do Sobrado Rua Guedes Cabral, 184 Rio Vermelho Salvador -Ba 41950-620 | lat= | long= | directions=
| phone=+55 71 9619-2635 | tollfree= | fax=
| hours= | price=
| checkin= | checkout=
| content= Beach houses for rent on the coast, from the Whalecoast to the Coconut coast.
}}
Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments4 people in discussion
@Ibaman, SHB2000: Since the region articles were created (prematurely) ten years ago, there has been little progress on filling them in. Here are the articles we have for each region now:
Would it be better to attach Northeast (1 article) to Grande Salvador (5 articles), and then call the Far West, SF Valley, Central North combination "Bahia Interior"? Ground Zero (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
the gist here is like that: Bahia is the oldest,most traditional and popular Brazilian state as a touristic destination, and the current subdivision makes total geographic and road-wise sense; it's really the most adequate. If we had a "Bahia expedition" or something similar here, these combinations would HAVE to be reversed. This must be mentioned. Ibaman (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
In response to Ibaman's comment, I note that Far West was created 10 years ago, and it still has no articles. When I merge regions, I redirect the merged region articles and comment out the text so that it can get easily restored.
Our policy for creating new regions is that we do it when there is a need to do so, i.e., when a region article is becoming too big. We do not create region articles in the hope that some day someone will populate it with information and articles.
Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy says: we only add a level of regions when there is too much content in the existing breakdown. As a result, the regional hierarchy at Wikivoyage doesn't always follow the official breakdown — and frequently is much "flatter" than the official political or administrative breakdown.
Many Brazilian region articles were created in violation of this policy. Ten years of nothing happening here shows us why the policy is sensible. As you know, I have been trying to populate Brazilian region articles with information so that they are useful for teavellers, but there is a limit to what I can do on my own. Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@SHB2000: I have combined Far West, SF Valley, Central North and Northeast into a "Bahia Interior" region. When you have time, would you be able to update the static map? Thanks, Ground Zero (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I just realised I completely messed up this map and merged Central South instead of Northeast. Well, that's a bummer... (I'll restart this tomorrow or maybe Sunday, time permitting). Sorry about that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
My Inkscape now doesn't work (i.e. it freezes every time I try to do some modification) :-(. I will investigate into this and see what I can do. Sorry for the even longer wait. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)06:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The first cut of the new map up. I'll make some further changes (the cities and other destinations don't match what's in the guide) in the coming days. -Shaundd (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
