Talk:Monticello, New York

message: 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)
thread_title: What should be included?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: interesting facts

message: 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)
thread_title: Request consensus to remove section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fix the history