Talk:List of American states

Purpose

Karen: I'm not sure why we need a big list of US states. Did you take a look at the geographical hierarchy page? -- (WT-en) Evan 16:21, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

We need a list because people will be looking for it in the most obvious place, and it's too long to put on the 'north america' page directly. A little redundancy never hurt anyone... the Australian states and territories are listed directly under Australia but there are only 9 of them so it's not a long list. (WT-en) KJ 16:27, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Now I have seen the article in question and I STRONGLY DISAGREE that that is the only way to do it. I think that there is definitely a place for 'state' articles as well as 'regions' because people do not always know what they are looking for when it comes to a foreign country, or even their own. We need both. I wouldn't put a vast amount of information under the 'state' articles - more of an index like I started doing with Australia yesterday. It's not a complete article and I wouldn't try to make it one, but it gave me a starting point to work from. eg. For 'California' I'd note that it's largely desert and I'd list the major cities and the major tourist-attracting areas (eg.Yosemite, Disneyland, Hollywood etc) and people could then go to the articles to find the information. (WT-en) KJ 16:34, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

I disagree with your disagreeal. B-) Redundant information is hard to keep up-to-date. Legal divisions of land aren't necessarily worth travel articles. For example, American states are broken up into counties, but most are administrative divisions without much real cohesion. I don't know if there's a lot of information you could write about North Dakota that wouldn't be equally applicable for South Dakota or Wyoming. That said, there are other ways of seeing travel, and this may be another way of getting people to the destinations they want. In other words, you convinced me -- keep up the good work. -- (WT-en) Evan 16:48, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

There ARE limits... lol I could sit here and write an article on my own suburb if I wanted but I wouldn't because I don't see anyone wanting to come and holiday in South Croydon! lol Anyway, I do see your point but I still think that there's no such thing as too much redundancy in a project like this. Anyway, I've got to go now... back later! (WT-en) KJ 17:03, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

---

So, I moved this page so it would fit in with our article naming conventions. Really, it was just a matter of capitalization. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:43, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

List of ...

I'm really not into these "List of ..." articles in that it seems like a lot more of a Wikipedia kind of thing than a Wikivoyage kind of thing. Let's consider deleting it again. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:39, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)

vfd discussion

• List of American states is another List of ... article in the spirit of Wikipedia's gillions of "Lists of". I really seriously don't want to see us going down this road, because it represents redundant navigation which will have to be maintained, and it goofs up isIn. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:55, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. These "list of" articles, although they're outside our normal hierarchy, provide a valuable release valve for pressure to list every canton (say) on the country page itself. They also are useful for making sure no canton, state, or country gets lost accidentally by shifts in the "container" articles. For example, I used List of Mexican states to help re-organize the hierarchy in Mexico. They also have low overhead, since they're just lists. --(WT-en) Evan 08:51, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. They're very useful to keep isIn tidy. (WT-en) Simone 04:46, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. I use this on occasion. It's is also #27 on Most Popular Pages.
  • Keep. -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:54, 20 Feb 2006 (EST)