Talk:Monticello, New York

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)

Should Stephanie Blythe be included as a notable person? Mulp (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

Okay, so what would you like to do now? At this time, the information is repeated in the article. --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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.169.184 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. But please bear in mind that according to Wikipedia:Trivia sections, it is preferred information not be formatted in trivia/interesting facts sections. Btw, do you live in Monticello? Must be cold there now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request consensus to remove section

I'd be happy to see this section go too. With regard to arguments that have been made in favor of keeping this section, I offer the following counterpoints:
1. It has been for a while

• So was slavery.

2. its well written

• Not a criterion for inclusion.

3. Its not decreasing the quality of the page

• I disagree, and since Wikipedia is about concensus...

4. the title itself is catchy

• Subjective.

5. it summarizes the basic points very well.

• The lead section serves as a summary of the article. No need to include a second summary.

6. it is not a trivia section (even if it was i dont see the problem with trivia sections)

• You may not see the problem with trivia sections but Wikipedia does.

7. no one else seems to have a problem with it

• I have a problem with it, as does an editor who tagged it as trivia before me.

8. it give this article a nice personal touch

• How quaint.

9. it lists facts that have no other appropriate place in the article.

• The facts are all located throughout the article already, so that isn't true anymore.

10. it is more important to maintain information in a form that people can find easily then maintain wikipedia purity.

• Find a Wikipedia guideline or policy that says that. Here is our guideline that says it is discouraged: Wikipedia:Trivia sections

--JBC3 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright you guys win. I have written more on this page probably then any other single contributor. Check the history logs those buffalo ip adresses are mine from when I couldnt log in. Frankly, I have lost interest. All joy has been sucked out of article for me in the name of purity. HAVE IT YOUR OWN WAY ALREADY. You win I lose. Happy now? Do you feel a deep satisfaction in your heart that you win the debate? Well do you!? I am done with this page and wikipedia in general. Enjoy your new page without the horrible trivia section that was so utterly terrible that it must be removed at all costs. I know no one here will care one way or another, its impossible to reason with people who have the "rules" on there side. Oh and feel free to delete this, I know wikipedia cant look bad at any costs. Must save face right? Enjoy your new page. Yeah and tell your friends how bad it was that I took this personally. Make me into the bad guy. I am sure you will all be happier that way. The Isiah (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix the history

The history was flagged due to info being copy and pasted from a government website. In the US, government info is in the public domain and not subject to copyright. 2600:1017:B42E:262B:4402:5D17:9231:CCF7 (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)