Talk:Albany Pine Bush

message: The "history" section should include a referenc to the Pine Bush's origins as a prehistoric lake bed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triskele Jim (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: (discussion section broken out to separate from other discussion--Doncram)
::New York State is not the official name of the state and not the preferred way to distinguish New York articles from other similarly named articles. New York alone within parentheses would be sufficient. Though leaving the article alone at Pine Bush wouldve been better instead of a move without discussion, as there are articles linked to this one that needed to be changed and werent and therefore now all wikilinks in other articles go to the disamb page instead of where they need to go. If you move a page it is your responsibility to change wikilinks as well as this can mess up other people's hard work on other articles and cause them unnecessary work that they may not even notice for awhile if you dont. As both other uses of Pine Bush were clarified by other words leaving Pine Bush Barrens in NY would have been acceptable under wikiguidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles for guidelines on expanding names for clarification and also the entire disamb guidelines for why a disamb is not always needed just because there are more than one or two uses of the same name. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.' is a quote from the guidelines therefore not my opinion, I argue (which means it is my opinion) that the other two uses of Pine Bush by having a longer name that distinguishes them from the Pine Bush makes them self-disambiguating from this term, feel free to argue that point. We dont turn the New York page into a disamb page just because there are other instances of the word New York. In this instance a hatnote would have sufficed given the relative unimportance of the other two uses of Pine Bush or the creation of Pine Bush (disambiguation) just as was done with New York, which is often what is done when a page has already taken the common name. If no one objects anytime soon I'll move to Pine Bush Barrens a more accurate description to set it apart.Camelbinky (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that wikipedians who move an article absolutely must update all links, but I don't object to helping out in that way.  However, it seems like the name of the article is in some dispute, and is being discussed perhaps in the next section "Article name".  So, I currently prefer to wait until it is a bit more settled.  By the way, it appears in this article's history that Camelbinky moved this article to its current name. doncram (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I am willing to discuss how disambiguating is done in wikipedia here, to some degree.  However, at my Talk page and above, there are indications to me that Camelbinky is fixated on one opinion and that therefore discussion may not be very useful.  I appreciate, Camelbinky, however, that in your discussion here you are in fact making some effort to separate opinion vs. facts, which I do think is important for allowing rational discussion.   However, for me, when a person selectively quotes from somewhere or otherwise makes a point and then, in ALL CAPS or not, states the point is fact and "not my opinion", that is investing a bit too much into the one point.  It should be obvious that wikipedia guidelines and policies often conflict, and that finding a quote in one guideline does not prove a point as a fact, not to be discussed. doncram (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About disambiguation

message: I don't really follow the discussion about the current article's name within the discussion section that i have labelled "About disambiguation" above, but I am coming here to comment about the article name because I did move this article earlier and I received a note about this to my talk page.  I agree to discuss, here, the name for the article about a pine barrens ecosystem in New York State.
About the name for the specific ecosystem, since there are many pine barrens in the world, it is apparent to me that the name needs to have something distinguishing it as being the one in New York State.  Also there are other places having the specific name Pine Bush.  Following conventions for other places, I suggest the name should be the official name for the barrens (if there is one) or a common, local name for the barrens, plus a disambiguating parenthetical expression, perhaps (New York State) or (New York).  To name this merely "Pine Bush" or "Pine Barrens" would be U.S.-centric and N.Y.-centric.  To name the article "Pine Bush Barrens", as it is currently appearing, seems incorrect also because the article's first line names it Pine Bush.  My impression is that the local name for the ecosystem is Pine Bush, but my impression could change if there were more information added to the article.  Given the local name appears to be Pine Bush, plus some opposition to using "State" in the disambiguating phrase, I guess i currently think the best name for this article is "Pine Bush (New York)". doncram (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it appears an appropriate article name might be Albany Pine Bush.  That is the name given for the area in the externally linked http://www.albanypinebush.org/ webpage.  I would not object if someone else wanted to develop the article text to use that name, and then moved the article to that name.  Would anyone object if I did that myself? doncram (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My uncle used to live/run a business in the Pine Bush, and I never heard it referred to as anything but the Pine Bush.  Which is certainly not definitive, but molds my opinion that Pine Bush (New York) would be most appropriate name. Lvklock (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with Lvklock. Doncram is right there are other pine barrens in the world (fewer than you might think though, and this is the ONLY sizable INLAND pine barrens) but the name PINE BUSH is a dutch appelation and is not common to all pine barrens, some might be thinking that pine bush is interchangeable world-wide with pine barrens and it is not. My opposition to Pine Bush (New York) is that this is awfully confusing with Pine Bush, New York the hamlet in well, I dont know where it is, someplace like Putnam or Orange counties or something. It is not notable and as since it is a hamlet it is not a municipality. Albany Pine Bush might be agreeable but probably half or more of the Pine Bush actually occurs in Guilderland and Colonie and not Albany and is owned by the state (though its a patchwork of city, town, county, and state and non-profit owned lands as the article mentions). Pine Bush Barrnes seems to meet the criteria set forth in the disamb wikiguidelines for making articles discriptive of what they are in the title to set them apart. To put Pine Bush (New York) someone might look for this when actually looking for Pine Bush, New York. Can anyone find another Pine Bush where Pine Bush is the name and not Pine Bush, New Zealand or some other obvious appelation that would self-disambiguate the articles from each other? I doubt someone in New Zealand looking for their tiny community would just type Pine Bush and not add NZ or something else on the end. I could be wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 
22:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Pine Bush Preserve? Lvklock (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Doncram, can you please restate your reasons why Pine Bush Barrens is unacceptable because I agree with Lvklock that Pine Bush Preserve is good. The only reason I see in your statements is that you consider it to be US-centric (that term itself, by the way, is US-centric as there are other countries whose official name starts with "United States" either now or in the past such as Mexico, Brazil, Belguim, Venezuela, Colombia, Indonesia, and over 1/2 dozen proposed names for countries such as a united Europe; American-centric would also be USA-centric as there are dozens of "American" countries, every single country on the North and South American continents). If that is your main argument I am happy to debate you on the point that is USA-centric. By your logic you would have to go and tell Los Angeles that L.A. should not redirect to their article, or for that matter Los Angeles should itself be a disambiguation page as there is a Los Angeles in both Chile and Nicaragua. Pine Bush is the only Pine Bush, a question I would like to know your answer to is- Why do you think it is important that wikipedia clarify in the title where a location is? Barrens at the end at least tells a little about WHAT it is and has in fact been used in print where as I have seen no source (please provide one if you have) of where the Pine Bush is described as Pine Bush (New York). Would Pine Bush Preserve be acceptable? Or if you must have some geographical designation for whatever reason I can live with Albany Pine Bush Preserve, I can not compromise with the Preserve part being in there if it you must have Albany in front as Albany Pine Bush has never been used as a name but many state and non-profit organizations (Save the Pine Bush, and note that it is "Save the Pine Bush", NOT "Save the Pine Bush (New York)") have used Albany Pine Bush Preserve as a name for the PRESERVE, which I suppose we can justify the article for the preserve to cover the Pine Bush as a whole even though they are not one and the same. And as a side note as I have pointed out before an article may keep the name and not lose it to a disambiguation page if it is the most notable of the articles, Pine Bush I would argue is the most notable out of Pine Bush, NZ and Pine Bush, NY; I could be wrong. But just going on their populations (about 200 for NZ and just over 1,000 for NY) versus the populations of the 2 towns and 1 city in which the Pine Bush goes into (approx. 200,000) I'm going out on a limb and saying more people searching for Pine Bush would be looking for the one in Albany. If we were as strict with population centers as we are with people regarding the notability requirement for the creation and keeping of articles there probably would be no article on the NZ and NY hamlets, but there would be an article on the Pine Bush in Albany. Camelbinky (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that 200,000 people would identify themselves as living in "Pine Bush" and for that to mean the pine barrens area near Albany.  I do believe that a few thousand people in New Zealand and in Orange County, New York, would identify themselves as living in Pine Bush, meaning those official places.  Do you mean for the article to describe the place as a place where people live?  I have the impression that any housing developments in areas that were formerly pine barrens, are no longer pine barrens.  So, I have the impression that no one lives in the pine barrens.  Or perhaps there are a few scattered houses in it?  Anyhow, there is no source provided that gives any population stated to be living in this pine barrens area.  The two external links in the article, http://www.albanypinebush.org/ and http://www.savethepinebush.org, both refer to the place as Albany Pine Bush.  There are no sources in the article referring to it as Pine Bush or as Pine Bush Barrens, as far as i can tell.  So, it appears to me that the place is named Albany Pine Bush.  Also, there are two other places places in the world named Pine Bush, one being an official census designated place elsewhere in New York State, so something more than just "Pine Bush" is needed for the name.  I would believe that, locally, "Pine Bush" alone is understood to mean this ecosystem, but that is not specific enough.  I suppose there is a 7-11 store locally known as "the 7-11", too, but for specific reference by the corporation which operates 7-11 stores it is probably "7-11 store number 847" or something like that.  "The 7-11" is not specific enough.  If the article is about a preserved portion of a larger ecosystem, perhaps not all protected, the article could be Albany Pine Bush Preserve, if that is an official name for a park or preserve declared by some level of government, and if a wp:RS reliable source is found that calls it by that name.  Actually, I don't understand from the article or the links whether there is any official preserve designated by any level of government.  So, again, it seems the sources available in the article suggest the name of the article should be Albany Pine Bush. doncram (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did not understand Camelbinky to mean that 200,000 people lived in the Pine Bush, but that the city/towns of which the Pine Bush is part had that population, and thus a large pool of people to draw on that might be looking it up.  I do agree that disambiguation is appropriate.  I don't have a problem with Pine Bush (New York), as it most closely follows the usual practice.  I can, however, see that it could be confusing with Pine Bush, New York being fairly close by.  So, if there are two places in a state with the same name, in the NRHP stuff, wouldn't we normally add the name of the locality to the disambiguation?  Like Pine Bush (Albany, New York)?  Or Pine Bush (Guilderland, New York), or Pine Bush (Colonie, New York)?  Either just pick the one with the largest area of the Pine Bush, or use it for the main article and have redirects to the others?  Any of those options would be my preference to Albany Pine Bush, Pine Bush Barrens or Pine Bush Preserve, because local usage is just the Pine Bush.  That said, of the final three options, Albany Pine Bush would be most acceptable in my view, because it's the one that gives the best information for a reader to know it's the one they're looking for...after all, everyone in Colonie and Guilderland knows that they're next door to Albany. Lvklock (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you Lvklock, that is exactly what I meant, I thought I had put it in that way but I suppose I was not clear. Doncram I hope this clears things up as to what I meant- the Pine Bush Preserve is in three different municipalities all in Albany County. The town of Colonie (around 80,000 people), the town of Guilderland (around 30,000) and the city of Albany (around 94,000) therefore the population of the municipalities which cover the Pine Bush is around 200,000. Pine Bush, New York (the hamlet in Orange County) has about 1,000 people and is not a municipality (a census designated place, or CDP, is a designation by the federal census for records purposes and does not reflect the state's opinion or designation or lack thereof, boundaries of a CDP may cover more than just the traditional view of what the hamlet it is named after, the census may and often does change boundaries of CDP's and residents dont give input, its a paper designation). Pine Bush, NZ as far as my research shows is about 200 people and no government either, what would be called in our state a hamlet. As for no one living in the Pine Bush- there are people who are considered to live in the Pine Bush and businesses considered to be in the Pine Bush even though obviously their houses/housing development/businesses destroy what makes the Pine Bush a pine barrens, examples would be Crossgates Mall/Commons, businesses on the frontage roads along Washington Ave Ext, Karner Industrial Park, the Rapp Road Community Historic District (African-American community dating from the 1800's of slaves from the South who hid out after moving north and their descendants today), and the suburban-style housing development "the Dunes". Given the small populations of the other two places I would guess more people drive through the Pine Bush preserve just on a SINGLE DAY than live in both other places combined. To say that nobody lives in a place therefore it is less notable than a place that has people doesnt make sense to me...Central Park is about the park in New York, no one LIVES there, but it is more notable than the communities with actual people living in them such as Central Park in Washington and Wisconsin or other parks with that name in places like Helsinki, Finland or Calcutta, India. It kinda sucks but being in the US (and in particualar NY) gives the Central Park in NY preeminence over Finland or India. It's not USA-centric or chauvenistic, to use an actual word for what I believe you were meaning (look up chauvenism, it doesnt mean anti-woman, people get that wrong alot). In the case of the name Pine Bush, people such as George Washington, Herman Melville, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Vladimir Nabokov wrote about the one in Albany, can anyone find people of similar stature writing about Pine Bush in NZ? As for names- I can live with Albany Pine Bush if that is currently the only name that is close to coming to a consensus. I just have a personal thing against all this parenthetical usage in any article title if a title could otherwise be found that doesnt need parentheses. Doncram, if you would like to do the honors of the actual move I am willing to take care of updating all links, if you and Lvlock concur on the name of Albany Pine Bush. I personally think it would be a mistake but compromise is about not always being happy.Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.  I moved it to "Albany Pine Bush" for now, with intro text saying it is "also known locally" as Pine Bush or the Pine Bush.  With the development of the article, esp. some addition of inline references and other sources, perhaps the "known locally" qualifier could be dropped, and/or there could be adequate support for a different primary name of the article perhaps based on a more historical, old name for the area.  However, this seems to me to be the best current alternative given the 2 external links in the article describe it this way, and the fact that "Pine Bush (New York)" would be kind of confusing with Pine Bush, New York being an already existing article about a different place.  I am more or less indifferent, but it sounds like Albany Pine Bush is preferred by others over  "Pine Bush (Albany, New York)".  Thanks for discussing this, Camelbinky and Lvklock.  It helps to have several inputs, and given your comments it sounds as if this place does have some history and it would be nice to see that reflected in the article. doncram (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: A lot of the Pre-history subsection deals with how glaciers impacted the formation of the Pine Bush. Should this be moved to the Geology section, with Pre-history reserved for only human events? The other History subsections deal with only human events.--Gyrobo (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, however that leaves the pre-history section too small; I'll move the glaciers part and then merge the prehistory section with the next section.Camelbinky (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history 

message: Now that the article is considered good, does it meet the featured article criteria? I think it's really well-cited and well-written, it doesn't seem to have any biases, it's fairly comprehensive, and pretty stable. What more needs to be done? Is something missing?--Gyrobo (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one dead link, finding the new link for that page if it has been moved or finding a new source for that same information is the first thing needed to do. I have two other articles waiting for a reviewer for GA status and I'm currently wrapping up getting an article through the Featured List process so I'm a little stretched right now, but can help out if you want to take the lead on nominating this for FA status, it might take weeks or even a month before it even gets reviewed.Camelbinky (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I found where that page was moved to, and I'll add it as a candidate.--Gyrobo (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work and good luck.Camelbinky (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: I have a couple pics I would like to share but I don't want to put them here. I need to talk w/ an mp immediately Melissa Hill (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake military personal  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Albany Pine Bush. 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/20080823005023/http://www.albanycounty.com/departments/achor/inout/ichap5.html to http://www.albanycounty.com/departments/achor/inout/ichap5.html
*Added  tag to http://www.suny.edu/about_suny/plazaHistory/index.cfm
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) 23:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello - I notice that the links in the first paragraph are not active. New website - https://albanypinebush.org/learn. I plan to update the links and associated text. CorForm (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the links and associated text, and also to the revised (2017) Management Plan. CorForm (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Modified