User talk:3family6

Hello 3family6! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.

If you are a Wikipedian then you may notice some differences in policies and the style of our articles. These include:
 * NPOV &rarr; be fair (not quite the same thing!)
 * be bold &rarr; plunge forward
 * Village pump &rarr; travellers' pub
 * External links &rarr; We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.
 * sandbox &rarr; graffiti wall
 * stub notes &rarr; Article status notes

It may also be very useful for you to check out Welcome, Wikipedians. If you need help, take a look at Help, or else post a message in the travellers' pub or on my talk page. Thanks for contributing!--ϒpsilon (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice going!
I love that you're adding so much content about places in the Berkshires, one of my favorite places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I live in Lanesborough, so I'm basically writing about my backyard.--3family6 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very nice place! I biked there a few months ago along the rail trail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2 full listings for the same place
Hi. I get your point about why you think the Shaker Village should be mentioned in the Pittsfield article, but I don't think it should have full listings in 2 articles (this site's don't tout policy normally doesn't allow that, and it also makes sense, because the attraction isn't in 2 places). Instead, I think I would want to have a note at the end (or if you feel it's important enough, the beginning) of the "See" section in the Pittsfield article, saying something like "In addition to these attractions, there is also the Shaker Village, just outside of Pittsfield in Hancock", and you could link "Shaker Village" directly to Hancock (Massachusetts), like so: Shaker Village. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that, though in this case the attraction really is in two places. Hancock Shaker Village literally stretches across both sides of the border - I'm not sure where the exact property line is, but buildings belonging to the village run right up against Central Berkshire Blvd, which is very much in Pittsfield. I do want to disclose that I currently work at the Village, but that this has nothing to do with my rationale - I was already familiar with how the Village is in both towns, and I don't have a vested interest in whether or not it is listed twice. I understand the concern about duplicate listings, and I think I was editing with an assumption that they should be avoided even before I knew that policy existed. I'm fine if one town or the other is decided upon, but I think that this particular case is an unusual one given the situation that the attraction spans across two towns.--3family6 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The attraction is in a single location that stretches across the border between two towns. That isn't actually so unusual a situation. I'm not sure it's a problem to list it in both places, as we do that sometimes for parks, but it should be clearly explained that although the village's homepage gives its address in Hancock, a substantial part of the village is in Pittsfield. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be good thing to note. I'll make sure that this is mentioned.--3family6 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)