Talk:Riverdale, Bronx

message: It is a short, basically unreferenced, and barely notable stub that should not be its own article, as it stands now.Additionally, a brief synopsis of each separate sub-neighborhood should preferably be in the "geography" section. Epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge articles without discussion first, your judgment on these matters is very, very poor. BMK (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that, thank you. That is why I have opened a discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *Whether Spuyten Duyvil, Fieldston and North Riverdale are sub-neighborhoods of Riverdale or not is an open question, but even if they are, that's not necessarily a reason for merging them into the main article.  The focus should, instead, be on expanding this article, not eliminating it. BMK (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *The question is whether N. Riverdale is part of Riverdale, or a separate neighborhood altogether, so that if it's in the same neighborhood, it can be merged and summarized in a few paragraphs, even if such an expansion were to happen (which I'd say is very unlikely given recent article activity). Up until your expansion today, the article was about 1,000 bytes and had about 15 edits in 5 years. Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it - and in fact, quite wrong, I think.  We can say that these neighborhoods -- from north to south North Riverdale, Fieldston, Central Riverdale, South Riverdale and Spuytin Duyvil are part of Riverdale, and they can still be "neighborhoods" in their own right, and worthy of articles if there is sufficient information about them to support one.  The question of whether to merge doesn't hinge on their status in relation to Riverdale, it hinges on whether an independent article is warranted or not.  We can -- and do -- mention those neighborhoods in this article, but that doesn't mean that they all have to be swooped up into it as if it was a huge vacuum cleaner.My judgment would be that Fieldston and Spuytin Duyvil are quite clearly stand-alone articles (and even you, in your eagerness to subsume them, didn't try to merge them in), North Riverdale was not clearly so at the time, but I think I've shown that it should be one.  Although it may appear at the moment to still be on the bubble, a closer look will indicate that there's a lot there that can be fleshed out, specifically the points of interest, schools and churches.  Now they're just lists, but the information is out there to expand the article.In the future, as I've mentioned before, you should not be so eager to merge.  Instead, do a little research first and learn something about the subject matter. BMK (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Central Riverdale, Bronx and South Riverdale, Bronx articles should also be considered, then, by your reasoning. Unfortunately, like North Riverdale, Bronx, they are mere directional parts of Riverdale that show that Riverdale is essentially split up into these sections (Fieldston is in North Riverdale, and Spuyten Duyvil is in South Riverdale, so we can consider a merge from N. Riverdale to Fieldston instead). Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Stop with the freaking merges, for crying out loud.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. BMK (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it is broke, so I am trying to fix it. (Just kidding...) Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ain't nothing broke, kid.  Leave it all alone. BMK (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK then. Let's allow other people to comment for a while, and see if they agree with the merge; I've heard your part about why you don't want it merged, BMK, but this isn't going to be closed just yet.. Epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[North Riverdale, Bronx]] 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Riverdale, Bronx's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "encnyc":
From Spuyten Duyvil, Bronx: Wolfe, Gerald R. "Spuyten Duyvil neighborhood" in , p.1224
From Fieldston, Bronx: Hermalyn, Gary D. "Fieldston" in , p.441
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Riverdale, Bronx]] 

message: Could someone please reference the nicknames for Riverdale in the infobox? I live in Riverdale and have never heard the nicknames being used. So could there be some references for those (or I'll take it out for being a hoax)? Gug01 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken them out as exceedingly unlikely to be true. BMK (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Gug01 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference the Nicknames in Infobox 

message: *Yes - As long as it is supported by citation(s) from reliable sources, the word "affluent" is no different from any other adjective.  It is not necessarily a flattering word -- many of the most vibrant and intersting places in the world are far from affluent -- and is therefore not always a peacock word, although it can be if used in Wikipedia's voice with citational support.  We report what is said by reliable sources, we do not create information ourselves, which is WP:OR and not allowed.  If reliable sources say that a car is brown, we report that the car is brown, even if we happen to think it's a particularly terrible shade of brown.  If they say that a person is brillant, we report that the person is brilliant, even if we cannot ourselves quite nail down the definition of what, exactly, "brilliant" is.  There is no difference here: we cannot substitute our own judgment for that stated by reliable sources.  If one of our guidelines (and remember, a guideline is just that, not a policy, and not mandatory) conflicts with what a reliable source says, then the reliable source prevails, or else Wikipedia would be creating original research by refusing to report something the reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (no threaded discussion, please)

message: The notable people section of this article is out of control.  The list should be moved to a new article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds logical......was going to edit the article a bit but I see lots of things going on...or should I say lack there of 😓--Moxy (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move massive Notable People list to a new article 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures