Talk:Buffalo, New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeBuffalo, New York was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 20, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Buffalo, New York:

  • Improve images, find new images. Need better skyline pictures.
  • Improve overall article prose
  • Look to other WP:FA city articles and WP:CITIES structure for general improvement ideas
  • WP:PR, WP:GOCE, WP:GAR
  • Abide by WP:PARAPHRASE when doing WP:SS
  • WP:SPLIT the growing but detailed history section
  • Revise climate table
  • Use journal articles for demographics and economy section
  • To satisfy WP:NPOV, need to find sources related to specific events and time periods of the U.S., such as an article on the 1901 Expo or a book about the Great Depression that mentions Buffalo


I am confused about the climate table[edit]

By which I mean this table, which is in the "Geography and climate" section:

Climate data for Buffalo, New York (Buffalo Niagara Int'l), 1981–2010 normals
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °F (°C) 72
(22)
71
(22)
82
(28)
94
(34)
94
(34)
97
(36)
97
(36)
99
(37)
98
(37)
92
(33)
80
(27)
74
(23)
99
(37)
Average high °F (°C) 31.2
(−0.4)
33.3
(0.7)
42.9
(6.1)
55.0
(12.8)
68.7
(20.4)
75.3
(24.1)
80.0
(26.7)
78.4
(25.8)
71.1
(21.7)
59.0
(15.0)
48.0
(8.9)
36.1
(2.3)
80.0
(26.7)
Average low °F (°C) 18.5
(−7.5)
19.2
(−7.1)
26.0
(−3.3)
36.8
(2.7)
47.4
(8.6)
57.3
(14.1)
63.9
(17.7)
60.8
(16.0)
53.4
(11.9)
42.7
(5.9)
33.9
(1.1)
24.1
(−4.4)
18.5
(−7.5)
Record low °F (°C) −16
(−27)
−20
(−29)
−3
(−19)
5
(−15)
25
(−4)
36
(2)
43
(6)
38
(3)
32
(0)
20
(−7)
2
(−17)
−10
(−23)
−20
(−29)
Average precipitation inches (mm) 3.18
(81)
2.49
(63)
2.87
(73)
3.01
(76)
3.46
(88)
3.66
(93)
3.23
(82)
3.26
(83)
3.90
(99)
3.52
(89)
4.01
(102)
3.89
(99)
40.48
(1,028)
Average snowfall inches (cm) 25.3
(64)
19.2
(49)
12.9
(33)
2.8
(7.1)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
7.9
(20)
27.4
(70)
95.5
(243)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 19.2 16.0 15.1 13.1 12.7 12.1 10.6 10.1 11.4 12.9 15.0 18.3 166.6
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 16.4 13.3 8.9 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9 14.0 60.7
Mean monthly sunshine hours 91.3 108.0 163.7 204.7 258.3 287.1 306.7 266.4 207.6 159.4 84.4 69.0 2,206.6
Source #1: NOAA (extremes 1873–present, sun 1961–1990)[1][2]
Source #2: Weather Channel[3]

An editor changed a lot of these values (diff is here) which got my attention, because the citation didn't change. That means either that the source was formerly used inaccurately, or the person making the change just failed to include her new source (probably the latter in this case, since it's a redlinked editor).

But looking into it, I don't see where the old values came from either. The three sources given are these:

  • "NowData – NOAA Online Weather Data". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2011-12-22.
  • "WMO Climate Normals for Buffalo/Greater Buffalo, NY 1961–1990". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved December 10, 2013.
  • "Monthly Averages for Buffalo, NY". The Weather Channel. Retrieved 2010-12-19.

But

  • The first doesn't seem to show monthly average highs and lows, although it shows other date such as monthly averages (unless I'm missing something).
  • The second ends a quarter-century ago, which I wouldn't think that would be very useful anymore, what with the things are trending (besides which the label on the table is "1981–2010 normals"), in addition to which -- if I'm reading it right -- the data there doesn't appear to match either the old or the new values in our article. For instance, "element 2" (the MEAN column of "Maximum Dry Bulb Temperature") of that source gives the average July high as 26.8C, which is 80.24F. But our previous value was 79.9, which the editor changed to 80.0. November is 8.4C (47.1F) but our value was 47.6 which the editor changed to 48.0.
  • The third shows only whole integers, which we're not using.

On top of that and FWIW we show this graphic:
File:BuffaloAvgTemps.png
which isn't very useful for specifics (it's OK as an overview, if it's accurate (don't know) and legal for us to use (doubt it)), but for instance it shows the average May high as a very tiny bit above 65F, which our table formerly showed 66.5 and now shows 68.7.

So not sure what going on here. But we'd probably be better off with no table than the current situation, either before or after the recent changes. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As further discussed here, these issues above really aren't valid at all. Just about anything on Wikipedia is subject to vandalism, but that's not really a reason to restrict anything. "The third shows only whole integers"...which is the way that record high & low temperatures are recorded in the first place.
I basically agree that the other graph located above the weather table in the Buffalo article isn't really necessary, but it does jive very well with a similiar graph that's available for plotting here by using the Buffalo Niagrara, NY site & the Daily/monthly normals "Product". Guy1890 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, OK, got it, thanks, I had missed that. Everything all Sir Garnet, concern withdrawn, thanks and sorry. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NowData – NOAA Online Weather Data". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2011-12-22.
  2. ^ "WMO Climate Normals for Buffalo/Greater Buffalo, NY 1961–1990". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved December 10, 2013.
  3. ^ "Monthly Averages for Buffalo, NY". The Weather Channel. Retrieved 2010-12-19.

Structure[edit]

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki away. This sounds like a useful project, and thank you. Herostratus (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be a more productive use of time to write some original content — a new article or well sourced addition to an old one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@GeorgeLouis: Thanks... have done both of those things as well... Onel5969 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Media[edit]

Info about historic or long standing independent newspapers even if they do not have articles about them should be covered. I am thinking in particular about the Riverside Review which covers the northwest area of Buffalo and has had only two owners in its more than 50 years of existence.1archie99 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines conformation[edit]

In an attempt to help get this article to the level of Good article or better status, over the next week or two I'll be working to restructure it to conform with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Much of this will include simplifying the article, removing subheadings and lists and creating related articles that will act as umbrellas to the former subheadings. In essence, by cutting, pasting and slightly modifying the content to these pages, most everything will remain intact. However the main page will be stripped down a bit. Dekema2 (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

I think it's time for this article to be nominated for Good article review. References to questionable content have been addressed, and for the most part the article follows WikiProject U.S. Cities guidelines. This is in part to help out the Good Article Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekema2 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Article failed from a lack of reliable inline citations. Perhaps a thorough review and long-term cleanup of sources could help.

Unfortunately, one issue I've just noticed is many citations make frequent use of the Wayback Machine which should never be used.Dekema2 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wayback machine[edit]

Why are so many references within the Wayback Machine? Dekema2 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wayback machine prevents link rot. Eventually, most weblinks go away (the infamous 404 message). The Wayback Machine prevents that. I never add a reference without an archive url, unless it is prevented. Oh, btw... am enjoying what you're doing with the article.Onel5969 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. I understand the reasoning behind the link rot, but as part of the issue with unreliable references, the article would still qualify as B-class. I think it would be best if it was added as a comment rather than a primary source. Also, another project that has to be done is getting more reliable references as apparently many in the article are not verifiable. --Dekema2 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Location in county vector image[edit]

If I have time I will attempt to create an image in the info box with Buffalo's location in Erie County. --Dekema2 (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Update 29 March 2015: I am in the process of learning how to use Inkscape and creating a county map for Erie County right now with the help of User:Rcsprinter123. Buffaboy (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Took a painstaking nonstop 8 hours but it's finished. Buffaboy (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

multiple issues....[edit]

The article is tagged for multiple issues -- some of the refs are unreliable, and it needs more. I'm not sure that the article needs to be tagged, in the great scheme of things, but an editor wants to, so let's see about this.

As far as "his article needs additional citations for verification", there are 181 refs and almost every paragraph has an inline citation. Of the paragraphs that don't have inline citations some are like this:

Buffalo is located on the eastern end of Lake Erie, opposite Fort Erie, Ontario, and at the beginning of the Niagara River, which flows northward over Niagara Falls and into Lake Ontario. The city is 50 miles south-southeast from Toronto. Buffalo's position on Lake Erie, facing westward, makes it one of the only major cities on the East Coast to have sunsets over a body of water.

Some of this is in sky-blue-territory and some of it should be pretty easy to ascertain if its true or not -- either the city is is 50 miles south-southeast of Toronto or its not, and so on. If this is disputed let's tag the disputed statements but I don't see the need to tag the whole article.

As to unreliability, can we start to tag those with {{Verify credibility}} and {{Better source}} (or whatever) and start to root those out. Tagging the individual refs that are not acceptable (and then waiting a while, and if not addressed then removing them and, if appropriate, the material they support) is a lot more useful that just a general tag on the whole article. Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I still count 49 paragraphs without any citations. Even the one that you mention above as Sky-WP:BLUE territory shjould probably have some citations. 50 miles south-southeast of Toronto needs to be states "as the crow flies" because it is a much longer drive than that. The article has a long way to go before we can consider removing the ref tags.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Fine, but paragraph-specific or section specific tags are a lot more useful. I added some, some more could be added. As an editor, I also have very little to work with with a article-wide (on a long article, on an article with 180+ refs) proclamation that "some" of the refs are of insufficient quality. Which ones, plz? Herostratus (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to read all of this right now, but I would work on this article more if I didn't have to work on college assignments. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I regret not finishing the peer review from last year, but I have been busy with schoolwork. I would like to help clean up this article at some point but will need to find time.

In the meantime I am working on a brand new template for the current Buffalo, New York one. You can view it in my sandbox. --Buffaboy (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Project[edit]

This article is easily capable of becoming a GA easily if not FA. This will be my summer project. If Utica, New York can have over 200 WP:RS, then Buffalo, with all of its history and a multitude of sources available, can easily meet that number and then some. Please help out if you can! Buffaboy talk 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm going to get started on this. The end result will look something like Utica, New York. I will be bold with this and spend weeks, maybe months perfecting this article. It will be a monumental challenge but when I have spare time I will try my hand at it. Buffaboy talk 03:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you are putting in to this article. I have to take some issue with your actions here, however, where you wholesale removed a number of citations and replaced them with {{citation needed}}. I agree some of those sources are weak w/r/t WP:RS, but I would suggest that it would be better to leave the sources, and add a {{better source}} template to indicate that they need improvement. (Bizarrely, you did remove one source and added a 'better source' template in its place, which makes no sense to someone browsing the page and not following its history.) By leaving the weak sources, those interested in improvement are given more details to help them locate better citations, and the article doesn't look like a 'citation needed' wasteland. These were good faith additions and could be almost certainly be verified with better sources; removing the weak sources completely only makes that harder to do. Thanks for the consideration and keep up the good work! Antepenultimate (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
O.K, glad I'm seeing this now. Normally, I would replace the unreliable source with a reliable one on the spot, but time constraint prevent me from doing this. My plan was to either put an old revision up side by side with the newer one just to get a glance of what is being discussd in the article, and then I would go find new sources to put in. I added the better source template because I realized I should've done it with all of them, but since I'm multitasking I didn't think to do it for the other ones. In the future I will use {{better source}} in a scenario like this. Buffaboy talk 02:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Cool. The benefit of appending a 'better source' tag when you're pressed for time is that those of us that are watching this page might just be able to get a few sources replaced in the meantime, perhaps saving you the trouble! Thanks again - Antepenultimate (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, and this makes sense for a higher-traffic (or any article) article like this, because when I was editing the Utica article, there were only a few content-edits per month, so I could afford to get away with a tactic like that. Buffaboy talk 02:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think I should explain my gameplan with this article. I intend to strip it down by removing trivial content, and then move content that could belong in a separate article to that respective article, as I've done with Transportation in Buffalo, New York. After the article is stripped down to the basics (almost like this revision of Utica), then I will slowly add on to what is there based upon reliable sources and going on a "scavenger hunt" to find information. It could be described as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't see it that way. Buffaboy talk 02:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buffalo, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked, and found to be an archived 404 page, no earlier archived versions available. Link is still dead. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Montage[edit]

Since the montage is a collection of permission-less photos, I decided to temporarily take it down and replace it with a clean {{Photomontage}} template. Buffaboy talk 02:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You might want to modify the caption to reflect the new image that you're using. Shinerunner (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea Buffaboy talk 21:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buffalo, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Racial composition table[edit]

The table of racial composition shows over 38% black yet the table of largest ancestries does not mention them. Similar situation for Hispanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.9.205.245 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason that it should. It's only the largest ancestry groups. It adds up to 42.8. It doesn't attempt to account for the origins of everyone in the city. Flyte35 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That sure is a lot of people to just write it off as: "Well, we aren't accounting for every single person". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.179.29 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed template modifications[edit]

Hello, I've made some proposals regarding some re-organization of the {{City of Buffalo, New York}} template over at that template's talk page; recognizing that fewer people watch templates than this article, I'd invite anyone watching here to comment there if they so desire. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffalo, New York. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

reconstruction[edit]

This summer I am planning to give a crack at this article again and turn it into a GA, then an FA. Anyone who would like to help, please do and provide suggestions. I helped Utica, New York out from what it used to be, now it is time to redo this one from top to bottom. I started but couldn't get anywhere. Buffaboy talk 22:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's already fine, maybe that's why it's hard to improve? In view of how bleak is the subject why should it be fluffed more than this? Rocked at turn of 20th century, sucks now, if you got that you've got the essence of it. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Buffalo, New York. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Buffalo, New York. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Rfc regarding article content[edit]

Are older sources reliable for a city article? Where can I look outside of the Internet Archive?

Buffaboy talk 09:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I've attempted to put a lot of effort into city articles such as Utica, New York. I believe I have a plan for this article. My concern is that the sources that are free tend to be published around the early 1900s and earlier. Does this affect WP:RS, as there is a policy that newer sources are preferred to old? Would the Resouce Request Wikipeoject be of any help with this article content?

Also, I feel as though no matter how much I personallly know about the subject, or what various books tell me, information about this subject will be omitted by overlooking it, or downplaying its importance. How can I ensure the article is comprehensive? I am trying to use the other US FA cities as a model, but because most of these were promoted over 10 years ago, all in 2007, the criteria may have changesd.

Buffaboy talk 09:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

When covering the very early history of many regions, it's easier to find older sources that do so well. In Ontario, Canada, for example, several "gazeteers" published in the 1800s are readily available on-line. I found them with a Google Books search. I used those often in the History section of towns and cities. See example below.
 By 1851, the village itself had a flour mill owned by Benjamin D. Snyder, a hotel, a blacksmith, a general store and a cooperage.{{cite book | title = County of Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directory, For 1864 | publisher = Mitchell & Co. | year = 1864 | url = http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/001075/f2/e010780571_p3.pdf | pages = 184} The first post office opened in 1852, called St. Jacobs, with Joseph Eby as postmaster and the village was incorporated in that year. By 1855, the population was 400 and by then, there were four hotels, including Benjamins which still stands; it was later known as the Dominion Hotel. In 1871, E.W.B. Snider bought the flour mill and promoted hydro electricity and other milling operations. The river helped power mills and a woolen factory and a tannery; by then, the school had 66 students. There was only a single church, (Evangelical Association) built in 1850.County of Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directory, For 1864 (PDF). Mitchell & Co. 1864. p. 184.
Here is a search for Buffalo history on Google Books; you will probably find several useful sources. It is more time consuming than searching Web sites but should contain info not available on the Internet: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=history%2C+buffalo%2C+new+york My search term was just History ... you could try a more specific search such as History, Churches ... Peter K Burian (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Good ideas, thanks a lot. Buffaboy talk 16:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This article seems useful too. http://www.buffaloah.com/a/landmks/wvillage/ gives thans to the City of Buffalo Preservation Board for their assistance.

See https://www.city-buffalo.com/Home/City_Departments/Office_of_Strategic_Planning/RegulatoryBoards/Preservation_Board/HistoricResourcesIntensiveLevelSurvey

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

One site I use for older newpaper articles is Fulton History.com [1] if you open the articles you find in the search window in a new tab you'll end up with a link that takes you to that page. The only downside is that the url's tend to be long. Another site is New York State historic newspaper [2] and both sites are free to use. Shinerunner (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A long URL is not a problem because the reader just sees the little blue footnote number. I would never worry about that if I found a useful/reliable site. I have edited the Wikipedia article for many towns; those are easier to do than a big city like Buffalo. But worth it once it's done. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the URL length is that it can sometimes make editing a page a bit more difficult and it might give a false sense that the article is too long when in reality the visible text of the article is much shorter. Personally, I'd rather have the good citable source and not worry about those things.Shinerunner (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

btw, @User:Buffaboy, the Utica, New York article is excellent. If you can get Buffalo, New York up to that standard, it would be an achievement. I live in Ontario, Canada, so am more interested in editing cities and towns in my area. Admittedly, I have not brought those articles up to the same standard as Utica, but they are much better than they were previously. If I had found a couple of other editors serious about those topics, those articles could be excellent too. Hard to do it all myself. Like the Climate section is one I never manage to do. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, that's the goal. I think I can actually outdo the Utica article as well, that;'s the bare minimum for me. Getting this to WP:GA or WP:FA is a challenge when you take into account all of the literature out there. For a city this big, there's too much information to survey. Buffaboy talk 21:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Also @SounderBruce:, per this FA-review I am worried that the 19th-century books I'm using are too old for the article. Or does it matter that much? I'd hate having to go back to redo references. Buffaboy talk 09:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue raised in the FA review was mostly about the book being a compilation of stories from local residents, rather than works by historians. As long as your 19th century books are written by historians or professionals, I think it will pass source review. It would be good to look at modern books by historians, even if they cite the same books, and add them as supplements. SounderBruce 02:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SounderBruce Good to know, I'm thinking a lot of the books are from the historical society. Either way, many of the authors seem to have forewords boasting about the book and the city, so that would be a good place for me to check. Buffaboy talk 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Article expansion[edit]

I am planning to do major work on this article in the coming months. I will be picking up where I left off last year. The eventual goal is to get it to GA or FA status. If anyone wants to share ideas please do. --Buffaboy talk 21:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Crime merge[edit]

I'm proposing merging the Crime section with Law and government. The crime section itself is only three sentences and far smaller than any other sections. BT9988 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

general[edit]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:36A1:B7AF:14DA:8F90:99A7:E349 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)