Jump to content

Talk:Geneseo, New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGeneseo, New York was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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
October 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

University

[edit]

I understand that the University has its own very good page, but does it not have a very significant impact on the town? It is not mentioned in any of the modern account of the town, nor is it internally linked. It is only present in the pictures and an external link. I'm not qualified to fix this, but I think it's a very substantial issue with the article. Boycottfood (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The article is a very good start, and I particularly like the infobox photo (nice work!). But it is largely incomplete, and does not meet the completeness requirement of the GA criteria. There are also insufficient reference citations as well, particularly in the history section (at the beginning) and the demographics section. I would recommend taking a look at the template/guideline WP:USCITY, and it will be quite clear of the information that is missing from the article (economy, climate, culture, government, education, transportation, etc). The prose is overall pretty good, but it couldn't hurt to review the wikipedia manual of style; most notably, there's quite a few unnecessarily bolded words in the article that could be fixed. WP:LEAD would provide useful tips on improving the introductory section. The formatting of references seems ok (although there's just not enough references). Review WP:CITE and WP:V for more information on this. Two good examples of existing GAs that you might take a look at are Flagstaff, Arizona and Richmond, Virginia. Good luck! Dr. Cash 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

[edit]

Attention: Geneseor village and the Town of Geneseo are TWO different places. This merger was unjustified and is inconsistent with how the the political entities of the state are recorded in Wikipedia. It is my intention to undo this harm. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stepp-Wulf! This merger took place nearly two years ago, after consensus on this WikiEN-l thread decided that it would be appropriate to merge the two articles, given that there is very little distinction between the village and town except for governmental purposes. As a resident of Geneseo, I can attest that the town and village are commonly treated as the same; the distinction is made clear in the article's introduction. --bdesham ★ 04:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the two were merged as a result of consensus, I would say they should only be unmerged by consensus, although personally I don't mind how they are presented so long as it is made clear that the two are separate municipalities. --JBC3 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, they are separate in terms of governing bodies, but they are not "separate municipalities" in the vernacular. They are overlapping jurisdictions who fill differing governmental roles. The Village of Geneseo is still within the jurisdiction of the Town (and within its boundaries, not external to them)for some matters, in the same manner that the Town is within the jurisidction of the County, State, and so on. Just picking nits:)Jbower47 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article is the result of an erroneous merger

[edit]
  • All political entities in New York (indeed, across the USA) have an individual article (except this one), including those with the same name (e.g. Hamburg, New York, Oyster Bay, New York, etc.). Even non-political entities, such as hamlets, have separate articles, in some cases. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    This is a result of the automated creation of articles by the Rambot—the entities were all given separate articles because that is how they are listed in the U.S. Census results. The Rambot organizational scheme was the most straightforward one to use to dispense the data, not a binding and permanent requirement for how the articles were to be organized. --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This merger was made from two distinctly different articles, a town and a village, with the resulting merged article straining to keep the two distinct. They have different demographics, histories, locations, etc. The distinct and separate articles did not have this problem. A good merger is made between two articles that are about the same subject, with different names and complementary content. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I think that "distinctly different" is a bit of a stretch here. As I've said, there is much more in common between the town and village than there is to separate them. The locations are practically identical, and are stated; as for the demographics, both sets are given, which is a fine format since they're both just streams of numbers anyway. I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out the parts that are "straining to keep the two distinct", so that someone can clarify the offending passages. --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merger editor claims residence in the village, stating that there is "little distinction" between the two. Perhaps if he lived in one of the other communities in the town, he might feel different. Towns and villages have different powers and functions in NY. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, do you live in one of the "other communities"? or are you presupposing others' feelings? --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same editor caused the apparent similarity by copying information from one article to the other in the past, this making them appear more similar than they really were.
  • The fact that this merger was wrong gains no merit by stating it occurred two years ago. The unmerged articles existed for three years prior to this.
  • If the two entities have been politically merged, then the justification for merging the articles might be sustained. But this has not happened.
  • In the past, other editors have attempted to build two distinct articles, one for the village and one for the town, pointing out several times that they are NOT the same. I also do not recall having been asked to comment on this merger in spite of contributions to these same articles. As these other articles were being written, the merger editor was converting the disambiguation page into his own private article. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    (I assume you're talking about me here.) I honestly have no idea what you mean by "[my] own private article". Are you saying that I injected some sort of bias into the article, or what? Could you link to an older revision that supports this? I do apologize for not mentioning the proposed merge on the article's talk page before bringing it up on WikiEN-l; I didn't realize that any other editors had any particular interest in the article. --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This type of confusion was caused, in part, by the same name and, in part, by the generalized use of the word "town" in the original posting of NY political levels, causing some to be mislabeled and others to be unconnected to related units.
  • There is no reduction or loss of articles accomplished by this merger, they are still in Wikipedia. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    There would be no loss of articles, but there would be a significant loss in organization and clarity. Moreover, the separate articles would lead to redundant content, which in turn usually leads to conflicting content. There's no need for that in this case; just merge the articles and make notes of any differences between the town and village. --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of merging the article was a "consensus," but by whom? If a consensus agrees the Earth is flat, it is nevertheless a sphere. I sincerely doubt that the merger was agreed to by considering the facts properly, including those summarized above. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As I mentioned, the issue was raised on the WikiEN-l mailing list, and the facts presented. The mailing list is considered an official form of Wikipedia community discussion. You can look through the archive linked above to see exactly what was said. --bdesham ★ 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for the village of Tully and the town of Tully were merged (Tully, New York), so this article is not the only one of its kind. If you want the article split so badly, why not simply propose it and get your own consensus? --JBC3 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other [bad] merger, proves my point more than it contradicts it, right? Stepp-Wulf (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No. --JBC3 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merger should not prevail. This is not a good idea. Where two entities exist, even overlapping, they should continue to have separate articles. The situation of villages within towns is common in other areas. Also, cities within metros. "Article creep" where the larger "creeps" into the smaller, should be stopped. A tiny (silly) example: Hoboken "has" Laguardia Airport to fly from. Nice, except it is across a body of water into another state, hours away during rush hour. Hoboken has no airport. But that's Hoboken. The answer would not be to do away with Hoboken and have a merged article with Laguardia! (Hope they're not monitoring this article!). Student7 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geneseo, 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geneseo, 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geneseo, 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geneseo,_New_York&oldid=1207381809"