Talk:Hammondsport, New York

Context

Magnolia677 - Re: This edit summary: restore sourced content; remove over-the-top puffery: "famed aviation engineer", "played a major role", "brought national notoriety to the small village", "torrential rain". Please do not edit war over this junk edit.

• Curtiss was not just another engineer, he was famous, a fact supported by sources, which should be made clear. He indeed played a "major role" as he was the first to design sea planes which caught the eye of the US Navy. Not a minor role. Also, there is nothing inappropriate by emphasizing that the rains were very heavy i.e.torrential. "puffery" concerns needless or inappropriate verbs, adjectives and such that present a topic in greater terms than are merited, which is not the case here.

This article isn't about "the Greater Hamondsport area", it's about the village. There are no vineyards in the village; there is no need to puff it up with text about vineyards.

• Much of the surrounding Hammondsport area is such because of Hammondsport. There is noting wrong with mentioning a few such things which places the village of Hammondsport in context. In fact, this is a WP:FACRITERIA: "...comprehensive...and places the subject in context";, which is what I've been aiming for.

We can leave Pleasant Valley out of the picture, etc, but we should leave those things that are directly involved with Hammondsport. And edit warring is a two way street. You are making numerous and questionable deletions without a discussion, and after some of your edits have come into question. The Attractions section, formerly the Additional information section, was mostly as it is before I began expanding the article. Most editors place a citation needed tag on items that are not sourced, unless they are of course glaringly in error or totally inappropriate. Last, your comment about "junk edit" comes off hostile, not "polite", per one of your user boxes, and is inappropriate in a discussion about context and other matters of opinion. Please express any indifference you may have in a more polite tone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My apology. It's just that you reverted an edit that improved the article, only to add back a load of puffery. The tone needs to be encyclopedic. And I'm not going to add "citation needed" tags when much of the sourced content I removed deceptively stated facts not supported by the source. US city articles will sometimes mention stuff located outside the city, but this article made it sound like it was within city limits. I know you put a lot of effort into this article over the past few days, but as close as the Statue of Liberty is to Hoboken, it's not in Hoboken, and some of the prose were so poetic, they sounded cut-and-paste. The article mentions the importance the wine industry to the village economy, which is true, and needs mentioning. But the notable vineyards are located miles from the village, so there is no reason to mention them here. This isn't a tourist guide. Anyway, let's try to work together to improve the article. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: — Thanks for your words of conciliation. As said, any unsourced item that is in error should of course be removed. Those that are likely not to be in error are often left with a citation needed tag so as to invite other editors to provide the source.
  — Vineyards. Yes, they are not located 'in' the village, and should be mentioned, and imo, it would do the article well to mention the oldest and most notable winery -- Pleasant valley. No one wants to go on at length about any particular vineyard, but it would add some context to the narrative just to mention at least one, esp since its grapes have for many years been brought into Hammondsport and shipped to various other points, which we could mention, btw.
  — Puffery: This occurs when someone tries to present a person or event in a manner that is overstated, misleading, or otherwise deceptive. e.g. Curtiss was and remains world famous, par with the Wright Brothers, for his pioneering efforts and inventions in aircraft technology. He is already a prominent figure, and making this idea clear lets any uninformed reader know that he wasn't just some other Aviation engineer.
  — The flood of 1935. This was the result of a very heavy record downpour that lasted almost three days that at this late date has yet to be paralleled. This idea was emphasized with the accurate term, torrential, and imo, it's not puffery or misleading by making that idea clear, which was done by indicating heavy rains.
  — The images. Thanks for adding a better image to the lede/infobox, and for the others, however, it would be better if they were placed alternately from right to left, a common practice if they don't obstruct a list, chart or some-such, rather than having them stacked, creating a runway effect on one side of the article. Yes, the article isn't a tourist guide, but, otoh, it shouldn't read like a watered down inventory report. Plenty of encyclopedias often add a little clarity or human color to the narrative without making it read like a personal essay, so I'm hoping we can come together on some of these ideas.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I just noticed that you left the term "famed airplane designer" in the body of the text in tact. Hoping this wasn't an oversight, and thanks if it wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Regarding your points:

• "Pleasant Valley" is still in the history section. It was removed from the "arts and culture" section because it's not located in the village.
• "Puffery" - I tend to follow MOS:PUFFERY, which specifically lists the word "famous".
• "Torrential" - Please add this word back if you like. It sounds pretentious, but it's used correctly.
• "Images" - Is there a reason why you want to stagger the images left and right? MOS:IMAGES permits it, but also states "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement", and "A consistent left margin creates a stable anchor for tracking through lines of text making it more readable / accessible", and "If an exception to the general rule is warranted, specify |left in the image link". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• "Famed" - I missed that. I'm still working my way through the article.

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: Yes, the word "famous" is listed but the guideline makes the point that these words should not be used without "attribution".
  i.e.MOS:PUFFERY: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". It would only be a matter of routine to find sources that substantiate the idea of fame, or notability, etc. I'll look into this further. Since using the adjective famed is accurate and by no means an exaggeration it would add a note of clarity to the phrase, imo.
  Re: "Torrential". In the spirit of compromise, the term heavy rains will suffice.
  — Multiple images: They can be staggered to the left when they do not obstruct a chart, or list, or compromise some similar format. This is frequently done in GA and FA articles to avoid a stacked or runway effect on the right side of the article.
  — We have coverage of Hammondsport's history all the way up to 1935, but I've been looking for anything notable to add that ties Hammondsport in with WWii, and thereafter. Hasn't been easy. In fact I've found nothing as of yet. Also, being that Hammondport and the wine industry go hand in hand I've been looking for RS that touches on the prohibition years as it may have effected Hammondsport. Any insights into these areas would be great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Instead of finding a reason not to follow the consensus of editors who added "famous" to the list of puff words, just don't use it. I don't want to fight over stupid stuff like this. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Didn't realize the discussion amounted to fighting. Those same editors indicated that the words in question should not be used unless there is "attribution" to reliable sources, as was said. Rules are important, but if they are held over other editors they should be considered in their entirety. Given this discussion it seems likely that some other editor will come along sooner or later and make the same issue, so I'll remove the term famed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• @Magnolia677: —  Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

He has a Wikipedia article. That makes him notable! You don't have to aggrandize his notability with adjectives glorifying how extra-notable he is over all the other notable people on Wikipedia. That's why I nuked most of this article, because it was written using unencyclopedic words and phrases. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You speak about using excessive terms yet resort to terms like "junk, fighting, stupid" and "nuked" to express yourself, all the while you display your "polite" user box. Curtiss was indeed notable over nearly all other aviation engineers, for obvious reasons, and this is expressed as such by multiple sources. I can see making this grand issue if someone was trying to artificially distinguish Curtis with a point that was not true, but again, that was not at all the case. As such it is allowed to make the simple point about being famed, per attribution, as was explained for you several times now, and yet I went ahead and conceded and removed the term in question anyway so as to avoid future such discussions, yet here you are, still talking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) .

Wineries

@Magnolia677: Re:your undiscussed deletion: The wineries in question are albeit not in the village area of Hammondsport but they are part of the Hammondsport township and all have Hammondsport addresses. Please look at the references. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: This article isn't about the township, or the county, or the state. It's about the village. So adding places over four miles outside the village as "attractions" is misleading and incorrect. This isn't a travel guide. Also, city boundaries have little relationship to postal boundaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is about Hammondsport...all of it, not just the village area. As was said before, well written articles present the subject in context. That means, we cover more than just the buildings and such in the confines of the village.The title of the article is Hammondsport, NY...it's not The Village of Hammondsport. It is the wineries that bring tourists to Hammondsport, along with the Curtis Museum, also in Hammondsport but not in the actual village -- or do you also expect that we not mention the museum? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Here are two maps: [1][2]. What it inside the Hammondsport boundaries belongs in this article, what is outside the boundaries is in Urbana, New York. Museums and notable places located in Urbana will be removed and placed into the correct article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: — Please don't dictate your own rules to other editors. Hammondsport does not exist in a vacuum. Often times those things which are directly associated to a town are mentioned in a given article. It is a common practice to mention items of context involving a given subject -- in fact it is FA criteria, B & C, per "context" . To add important context to Hammondsport it is only appropriate that the museum and the wineries are mentioned. Since Curtiss was born in and spent most of his aircraft engineering days in Hammondsport, it is perfectly acceptable to simply mention the Curtis museum where many of the things he invented and developed at Hammondsport are displayed. No one wants to add irrelevant items or go on at length about these things. Unless you can provide a policy that specifically says in effect that editors cannot at least mention things outside the boundaries of Hammondsport that are directly associated with it, a brief mention of the museum, and the wineries, should be returned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: — You are correct that the items in question are actually in different locals, regardless of their Hammondsport addresses. e.g. The Curtiss museum certainly doesn't belong under the Attractions section for Hammondsport as this would indeed be misleading. We should, however, include a brief statement in an appropriate paragraph that simply says, "...many of the planes and other inventions that Curtiss developed and manufactured in Hammondsport are currently on display at the Glenn Curtiss Museum, in Urbana, just south of Hammondsport."  As for the wineries, we can forego mentioning them by name and in an appropriate paragraph mention that many wineries can be found near Hammondsport, which is where many of the grapes and wines are brought before they are shipped off to their ultimate destinations, an important part of Hammondsport's economy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The article would certainly benefit from that, so long as it was not promotional in tone. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Magnolia677  — Will keep an eye on any promotional prose, bearing in mind that there are so many factual things that can be said about Hammondsport which unto themselves might sound a bit promotional. Guess we had a few hard knocks to share with each other, but the outcome was worth it. Thanks for your contributions, and thanks for looking out. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)