Talk:Georgetown, Massachusetts

message: this looks like a copyright violation
http://www.georgetownhistoricalsociety.com/history.html
:Good catch.  I've blanked that section of the article. -- Merope Talk 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

message: This list of "notable" places is clearly inappropriate per Wikipedia policy.  There is no need for links or listings of every business in town or "stand out" high school athletes.  The Wikipedia standard is that if these places/people have their own article on here somewhere, then they should be included in a list of notable things from a town.  None of these have an article as far as I can tell so, therefore, it is unnecessary to have these lists.  They should be removed.  Metros 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view

message: Should city articles include local businesses, points of interest, restaurants, etc?
*No An article should include anything notable from an outside perspective.  It should have include a directory, though, which is what this article appears to include right now.  Metros 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just having a profile on an NCAA website doesn't mean you're notable.  There are millions of student athletes out there at these colleges.  We don't need to list every single NCAA athlete on their hometown's page.  I'm an NCAA athlete and I know I'm not notable despite the fact my college has a profile about me.  Just because your town is proud of them and they represent the community does not mean they're notable.  Metros 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's great if you want to put that kind of stuff on your town's website.  But it's not for a Wikipedia article.  You have to follow Wikipedia standards of notability on a Wikipedia article.  We have standards so we know what is notable in your town is the same as notable in another town.  Metros 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, using the 'these things are notable to Georgetown' argument, I deserve personal mention on Lisgar Collegiate Institute because a good portion of the school (which is large enough to be a small town) and many people in the surrounding area know who I am. There are probably two hundred students in the school that could use this logic to get themselves on the page. The result: a huge, useless list of people that the rest of the world doesn't care about. If some of the athletes have been the subjects of newspaper articles or television interviews, they might deserve inclusion (heck, they'd deserve their own article). Simply put, there is a misunderstanding here of what makes a subject relevant on Wikipedia. --Nucleusboy 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a point as to why this should stay aside from "we think it's interesting"?  Any policy that supports you adding this information in?  As you stated yourself, it breaks a lot of Wikipedia policies.  Until policies change, this information should be removed.  Metros 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also point out that this has already been discussed before on Wikipedia; the essay is located at WP:HARMLESS. The salient point is that the information needs to be verifiable to be included. If it can't be backed up by a reliable, independent source, it ought not be in the encyclopedia. And yes, I'd take an axe to my own hometown's article, too; it suffers from a minor case of list bloat currently. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, NAPA Auto Parts and Tidd's Junkyard are encyclopedia-worthy, to cite two entries?  The policies on notability exist for a reason, and aren't scalable-down.  This appears to be towncruft, and no matter how important the local CVS drugstore is in Georgetown, it needs to justify its entry like anything else.  "Big Mike" - educational?  The movie entry - sure, it's probably notable, perhaps minus the cast list.  There's no big brother here, all local geographic entries have to abide by the same rules.  Take a look at other towns in Category:Towns in Massachusetts for comparison.  Acroterion (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the landmarks mentioned in the article are sourced and have notability.  Places such as CVS and Tidd's Junkyard I agree may require an edit or removal, however they do no warrant a deletion of the entire page, which user Nucleusboy took upon himself to carry out.  The article probably does require editing, but not without carefully going through each point.  Most of the places, people, and landmarks mentioned are fine by Wikipedia's standards on notability.  How does one go about removing the lock on the page to work on editing the smaller problems with the article?   7minutematch 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I indented your comment above to preserve the thread.  Nucleusboy didn't, in fact "delete the page".  He did approximately what I, myself would suggest - remove everything from Athletics to Notable Residents.  The whole Athletics section has far more to do with Georgetown Junior-Senior High School - which doesn't have a page, but certainly can under WP's notability standards for high schools.  I'd caution that even high school articles don't have lists of coaches or players, and pictures are limited in size for bandwidth considerations. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we create a Georgetown high school or school system page we can put some of these things on here?  Because otherwise it sounds like the page is going to be stripped of basically everything and brought down to the stub that is was before.  While these notability policies have been brought up constantly, what is the point of having a page about a town if the only information on it is demographics no one is going to remember?  Each town page is almost the same and those type of boring articles drag down the site.  I don't understand how so much attention can be paid to our article while many longer and more relevant articles are probably being mis-used.  Leaving this article, minus some edits, alone is not going to spark a riot where everyone adds "uncessary" information to all Wikipedia articles.  Really, where is the fire here because there is no way it can be with an article about Georgetown.  Turkeydaybusted 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, do a high school article.  And expand the Georgetown article with solid content, not lists of stuff and commonplace items. In reviewing the article, I have a question - where does everybody in Georgetown work?  What is the basis of the local economy? That's the kind of thing you see in encyclopedias.  Every town has schools, fire stations, churches and stores.  Every town in Massachusetts with more than fifty people seems to have a Dunkin Donuts - it'd be almost notable if Georgetown didn't have one of those.  In order for the article to be unprotected, a consensus must be reached on actions - which must conform to Wikipedia requirements.  I don't think we're quite there yet.  How about starting with the creation of Georgetown Junior-Senior High School and moving some of the content there (please, no lists of coaches)?  The Framingham High School article is a pretty good model; I'd suggest you steal the formatting from there to begin with.  Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: How much detail should a City article have?

message: The article has been unprotected apparently.  I have removed the non-notable information per our discussions here.  Please only add back anything if you have sources to prove its notability.  Metros 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note on 's talk page  to the same effect.  Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article unprotected

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Georgetown, Massachusetts. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified