Talk:Monticello, New York: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 17 February 2009

Cities Unassessed

	Cities portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

New York (state) Unassessed

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What should be included?

wish i could add more, i mean it is my home town but i dont know what would be allowed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.186.41 (talk • contribs)

The racino is a miserable faliure and shouldnt be put in the article. I mean we have lots of low income housing developments but we dont say anything about that. Oh yeah and crime.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.111 (talk • contribs)

The racino is a very important part of the area. It certainly should be mentioned in the article. BTW the payouts there are excellent. On the other hand, NY Lotto is the world's biggest ripoff, since only 40% of sales are used for prizes. 216.179.123.111 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interesting facts

this was removed for no reason, dont worry I put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.169.184 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section belongs in this page for the following reasons:

1. It has been for a while 2. its well written 3. Its not decreasing the quality of the page 4. the title itself is catchy 5. it summarizes the basic points very well. 6. it is not a trivia section (even if it was i dont see the problem with trivia sections) 7. no one else seems to have a problem with it 8. it give this article a nice personal touch 9. it lists facts that have no other appropriate place in the article.

Most importantly: at no point has there been any and I mean ANY dscussion on the removal of this section. i would say that if a section that someone put a lot of hard work on and a page that that same person put a lot of work on has to be deleted there should be some discussion. Not to just a deletion. 72.228.169.184 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but if you look closely you'll see that all the facts within the section are already included in other parts of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well dude not to be rude but whose fault is that? I put a serious amount of energy into this article and I made sure that WHEN i wrote it that there was no doubling up of information. Lets just put it back the way it was. By the by should we be having this discussion on the talk page of monticello?

Oh yeah. Even if this did "resemble" a trivia section. is the solution to just delete information? is wikipedia so committed to have data in a certain format that it would rather be incomplete? 72.228.169.184 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, so what would you like to do now? At this time, the information is repeated in the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

honestly, go to sleep. I can look it over tomorrow. How about a compromise? I will go through each piece of doubled info and move it if necessarily. if anyone disagrees with the move we can talk about it. If its not needed to be moved i will delete the extra.

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Well dude not to be rude but whose fault is that? I put a serious amount of energy into this article and I made sure that WHEN i wrote it that there was no doubling up of information. Lets just put it back the way it was. By the by should we be having this discussion on the talk page of monticello?
-Oh yeah. Even if this did "resemble" a trivia section. is the solution to just delet information? is wikipedia so committed to have data in a certain format that it would rather be incomplete?
+Oh yeah. Even if this did "resemble" a trivia section. is the solution to just delete information? is wikipedia so committed to have data in a certain format that it would rather be incomplete?
 [[Special:Contributions/72.228.169.184|72.228.169.184]] ([[User talk:72.228.169.184|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :Okay, so what would you like to do now? At this time, the information is repeated in the article. --''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
+honestly, go to sleep. I can look it over tomorrow. How about a compromise? I will go through each piece of doubled info and move it if necessarily. if anyone disagrees with the move we can talk about it. If its not needed to be moved i will delete the extra.