Talk:Maple syrup mystery smell

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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 CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Coscarelli, Joe (18 September 2013). "The Amazing Maple Syrup Smell Strikes Back in NYC". Intelligencer. Retrieved 6 December 2023.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Barbaro, Michael; Schweber, Nate (6 February 2009). "Aromatic Mystery in New York City Is Solved". The New York Times.
Horn, Jason (12 Oct 2020). "Sotolon: The Molecule That Smells Like Pancakes, Fall, and a NYC Mystery". Serious Eats.
Kiechle, Melanie A. (2017). Smell Detectives: An Olfactory History of Nineteenth-Century Urban America. Seattle: University of Washington Press. pp. 3–4, 12–13, 267n1. ISBN 978-0-295-74193-2.
Lindeman, Scarlett (14 June 2010). "The Mystery of the Maple Syrup Smell". The Atlantic.
Matson, John (February 5, 2009). "Mystery of NYC maple syrup smell solved!". News Blog. Scientific American.
"Mayor: New York's maple syrup mystery smell solved". Reuters. 5 Feb 2009.

Untitled[edit]

I am at a loss as to what categories I might apply to this poor stub, but I would like to outline what great hopes I have for it. Please bear with me, as IMHO, this is but the tip of an iceberg in matters that are of great concern to the Wiki Community as a whole. (Yes, this is reminiscent of Spock addressing the UFP Governing Body, but this is good news.)

The Wired article outlines the cooperation between the 311 system, a technical system of U.S. EPA techniques, and a vast body of some the (arguably) most cynical and individualistic citizens on Earth. And yet it worked. There is a further discussion of the content management systems (CMS) by which other, similar endeavors are being undertaken, continuing, or completed. ALL THINGS WIKI involve CMS! That is the software that MediaWiki sells (EDIT:erp...provides). This is a HUGE bonanza of bright, shiny, golden PR. While no principle of Wikipedia standards should be violated, not even bent, the opportunity to prove the worth of CMS, crowdsourcing, and yes, the very standards the Wiki community must uphold, and most stringently here, is enormous.

I hope that this story, or any other like it, will suffice, to start making Wiki a vastly more respected community, culture, and yes, way of life and livelihood. Please consider these possibilities carefully, and I will make what contributions I can to this article. The contributions of others is -exceptionally- welcome. I would rather not screw this up and have no-one to share the blame with. :) --TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, adding the category "Group processes" really turned out surprisingly. Help! --TheLastWordSword (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I added a bit more, working on it. Requests: 1. Can anyone tell me how if I can number the references and refer to them out of order? 2. This chemical weapon referred to is supposedly called "Northrax", but I have no solid reference to it. Having searched for just about everything, all I get is a reference to a "30 Rock" episode. I'm not citing that. Nope, not even I, sir. --TheLastWordSword (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

311 and Open311[edit]

If we create an internal link to either 311 or NYC311, we can start to refer to Open311, and then get down to some business in terms of open systems and collaboration. Open Plans wants to create a "write-once, run-everywhere platform", which the Wired article compares to an OS, but also sounds very much like MediaWiki to me. --TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

late 2000s[edit]

late 2000s vs. 2010s, 2100s, 3000s...

This will become a problem in the future. Jidanni (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]