Talk:Finger Lakes

If plugging one lodging in town, the others ought to get equal billing.

Map
I created a map of the region for this article. Let me know if you think it's too busy, but I thought it important to show major routes around the region. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Subdivision
OK, so we probably have too many destinations here for a single region; it'll need to be split up into subregions. We could split by counties, but given the county borders often run through the lakes, and the sheer number of counties involved, I don't think that's the best option.

My thought was to have four subregions:
 * 1) One encompassing Monroe County, plus Victor and maybe Avon. "Greater Rochester" is one choice for a name but that usually refers to the six-county area of Monroe, Orleans, Genesee, Wayne, Ontario, and Livingston (two of which are in another region entirely); I'd prefer something else.
 * 2) Wayne County and northern Cayuga County -- basically from the lake south to the Thruway. No idea on a name.
 * 3) Eastern Finger Lakes: Ithaca, Auburn, Skaneateles, Seneca Falls, Geneva, Watkins Glen, and Trumansburg.
 * 4) Western Finger Lakes: Geneseo, Canandaigua, Naples, Hammondsport, and Penn Yan. And Letchworth, of course.

A more natural border between the Eastern and Western Finger Lakes might be between Canandaigua and Keuka lakes (putting Hammondsport and Penn Yan in the Eastern subregion), but that would leave Canandaigua as the only "major" Finger Lake in the Western region, and not much in the way of destinations either. An alternative would be to split the lakes north-south, putting Geneseo, Canandaigua, Geneva, and Auburn in the North and Ithaca, Hammondsport, Penn Yan, and Naples in the South. It seems weird to split the lakes (all except Keuka) like that, but it's an option.

Thoughts?

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 14:32, 20 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I have implemented a region division. Feel free to comment.  LtPowers (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

A toast?
Can we lose the "toast" picture? It doesn't show anything worth looking at as the background is very out of focus, so the picture strikes me as merely promotional in nature. Texugo (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm open to alternative suggestions, but I think it's an excellent image and it well illustrates the intended message of 'wine and water'. Simply appearing promotional is no reason to remove it without an equally good replacement, is it?  Powers (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply appearing promotional isn't the sole reason for removing it: it's a completely pointless image, showing us abolutely nothing clearly except the wine glasses, like a stock photo. Are wine glasses really something so important to have an illustration for? Texugo (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not wine glasses, specifically, but we need some sort of lead image, and this serves the purpose by showing a lake and showing wine. I will reiterate that I'm open to alternatives, but I don't think we should eliminate the lead image entirely.  Powers (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)