Talk:Lancaster, Wisconsin

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

I moved this from the article because I don't think having lists of accommodation in places is a good idea. What do other people think? Angela 12:51, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Lancaster accommodations include the Best Western Welcome Inn (608-723-4162) and the lovely Maple-Harris Bed and Breakfast 608-723-4717, 888-216-0888

I don't have a strong opinion on this.[edit]

...I'm new here, and still learning the ropes. I just threw it in because I thought it might be useful information for a reader to have.

You're probably right. A traditional encyclopedia wouldn't mention them unless the building were of some architectural or historic note.

And you can seek out accommodations easily through the travel websites.

But then, quite a lot of what's in Wikipedia can be found that way.

I guess the question is, if someone looks up a place in Wikipedia, what sort of information would they want to see?

I didn't see anything glaringly obvious bearing on the isues in "Policies" or "What Wikipedia is not."

Avoid statements that will date quickly

would suggest not including such information

Make articles useful for readers (and consider the audience in writing)

might tend in the other direction.

Dpbsmith 18:08, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was also thinking of Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, which is hard to enforce if we allow details of things like accommodation. Also, you can't list every venue in any town (that would make us a travel directory) and you don't want to be subjective and only choose to list some. There's also the problem of keeping the information up to date. I think a link to a decent listing of all the accomodation you can get in Lancaster would be far more useful than even attempting to get a decent list here. Theer aren't any strict policies on the issue though, which is why I was asking for other opinions too. Angela 18:17, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Took your suggestion...[edit]

...or at least I think I did... put back "accommodations" in the form of links to the City of Lancaster website, which appears to me to be complete and impartial. Think that's acceptable?

Dpbsmith 11:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yep, seems fine. Angela 11:29, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lancaster, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]