Talk:Lake George

Focus of the article
Exactly what is the intended topic of this article. I see links for more info on Bolton Landing, Warrensburg, etc. But then places in Bolton Landing, Diamond Point, etc are handled in the same location. Do we want the article to focus on the lake or the village of Lake George? Mitch 32 (The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is one of our many articles that could use some tender loving care. And curation.  It's been left to the wolves for a while, and so a lot of ancillary stuff has crept in.  Defining exactly what the article should cover is a bit of an unsolved issue; there's discussion at Talk:Adirondacks about how to divide up that region, but nothing concrete has been decided.  If you have any thoughts on the subject, they'd be quite welcome!  LtPowers (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to think we should try to make this just one article. If it needs to be split, better to do that after collecting the content here and seeing what it looks like. --Peter Talk 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but one article covering what areas? LtPowers (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The communities right on the lake, which would include Bolton Landing, Lake George Village, and some others. --Peter Talk 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an awfully long list. Bolton Landing, Lake George Village, Huletts Landing, Ticonderoga, Hague, Silver Bay, Sabbath Day Point, Diamond Point, Pilot Knob, etc. Of that list, I'd argue Ticonderoga, Bolton Landing and the Lake George Village could all handle their own respective articles and that this article cover the lake and the general area? Mitch 32 (The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are a couple ways to do this. And yes, those three could support their own articles. The standard option would be to write a region article about Lake George that would link to the towns/communities on the lake. Listings would then go in the linked articles, with general information in the region article. The only problem with that is the general sprawl along the lakeside doesn't conform too well to a set number of discrete communities. Is there a way to combine the other communities into a couple articles? --Peter Talk 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could argue that we could make a Lakeside communities of Lake George covering the village, Ticonderoga, and Bolton Landing in summary form, while detailing: Diamond Point, Cleverdale, Pilot Knob, Huletts Landing, Sabbath Day Point, Hague, and Silver Lake. It's not the greatest option, but definitely not the worst. Mitch 32 (The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 15:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) What about a West Shore article covering Bolton & the Hague, an East Shore article, and separate articles for Lake George and Ticonderoga?Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that could work logistically, though I cannot speak to the appropriateness from a travel perspective. Powers (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been to the area quite a few times and it makes sense to me from a travel perspective since most visitors to Lake George don't venture outside the village, it makes sense for it to have its own article. It's basically impossible to cross the the east to west shores unless you happen to own a boat and the west shore has a road that connects both towns so separating by side makes sense.  The biggest issue is the east shore, which is mostly undeveloped wilderness.  It's a huge area so it might be able to support an article, but I don't know much about that side of the lake.Godsendlemiwinks (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

De-tout
The sleep section is straight up advertising and could use some editing. Caspar56 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead if you have the time, and thanks for putting up the notice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The descriptions for the hotels are uncommonly lengthy and detailed, but I don't find them overly promotional in tone. I'd say it's rather a good thing than a bad thing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted above without looking at the listings, because my previous experience is that whenever someone thinks a section is touty, it usually is. I think I detouted the listings at some point. And now that I've checked the history, yes, I did, but it was back in 2013. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do really quickly see a problem: What are the ratings at the ends of the hotel listings in the "Budget" and "Mid-range" sections? They look like Tripadvisor numbers or numbers from some other site. Are the descriptions copyvio? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I quickly ran a few of the descriptions through Google and they don't appear to be plagiarized (at least not from anything on the Internet) - the only results that came up were us, WT, and a few sites that republish our content. As for the ratings, yes, they should probably be deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted the numbered ratings. I guess we disagreed, because I found some detouting and editing for brevity essential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to find any obvious copyvio but the text does look a bit wordy and lengthy, with a fair amount of fluff ("perfect for [whatever]") and claims that would likely be true of any viable short-term travel accommodation ("they have maid service daily"). It looks like the text was added circa-2013, although the history is a bit difficult to follow. There are also no links back to the individual hotel websites, so it's harder to check whether the information is still current three years later. Even if it doesn't violate WV:Don't tout or read like a bingo card of clichéd promotional language, it could use to be brief, factual and to-the-point so that it looks a little less like an advert. K7L (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)