Talk:1946 Huntington Planning Map

Tagging as "uncited" and "candidate to move"
This is pretty obviously original research about a random map produced by the town of Huntington. It should be moved to Commons, possibly on the image description page. --NE2 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You placed the "original research" and "move to commons" tags on this article. You refer to this article as "a random map produced by the town of Huntington".  Well it seems the first problem is that you apparently haven't read the article.  The article clearly defines the historical significance of the map as a historical snapshot of the birth of suburban sprawl in post WWII America - and hence it's justification as an article.  It may not be the most essential document in the history of mankind but it's clearly not just some unjustified random map.


 * Other than that, you still don't clearly define your specific case against the article. Let me assume from the tags you placed, staring with the "candidate to copy" tag.  That tag states its purpose with the statement "Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."  Um... okay.  I don't see how this is at all relevant.  There is a full encyclopedic article about the map, containing over 600 words of corresponding text.  I could stop here since my point is obvious but to go further, this text clearly identifies the historical significance, supported with straight-forward facts pertaining to the scope of subject (towns shown on the map including "extinct" historical names) and about planning decisions for the future of Long Island.  In any case, just look at the other pages listed in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and you'll quickly see that almost all other articles in there are galleries (collections of images), which this article clearly is not.  The notion that there is to text on this article is ridiculous and that tag you added can not be justified.


 * The other tag states "Please help Wikipedia by adding references."  Well in this case, the subject of the article is the reference.  Would you like me to cite the map as it's own reference?  Sounds ridiculous to me but if that's what it needs than I'll go ahead and cite the map as it's own reference.  However there are actually references already in the article.  There is a link to a google map showing proof that a road that was mentioned does exist, and I wiki-linked to items such as towns, LIE, Northern State, and 25A.  I honestly don't see how something that is obviously observable by anybody with eyeballs could even qualify as research in the first place. They're just simple facts of whether something is seen or not.


 * But if you really need some external research to cite as a source, I can blog about all of this on my personal blog and then you can cite my blog as the reference. No seriously, I'm not kidding.   I am personally in possession of this physical document so if that's the way to get around this citation issue then that's a possible solution.


 * In general, I can fully understand how one file of an insignificant image without explanation would not constitute a valid article, but it's clear that there is an article here (with text) so at least one of those tags is irrelevant. If you aren't satisfied with my arguments than please visit the Village pump or somewhere else appropriate and ask for more opinions on this matter from other Wikipedians.


 * Thank you Fife Club 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources like newspapers that state that the map is historically significant? If not, the article is original research. Please read that policy. If you would prefer, I can take it to articles for deletion, where it will likely be closed with a result of delete or transwiki. --NE2 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got emails from the Huntington Town Historian, who also happens to be the person who granted permission to post it to Wikipedia. Shall I add his name to the article as an expert on the subject, verifying it's historical significance?  This map was also historically significant enough for the Long Island History Museum to request a copy for it's archives. Would you like their curator listed as well?  So to answer your question, yes and yes.  Anything else or are you done?  Fife Club 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take it to AFD. --NE2 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-Assed Job, Not Well Done
"The result of the discussion was Merge to Huntington, New York." Okay, but when you redirect the article and don't finish the job of merging the articles then what you've done is gone is affectively deleted the entire article against the group consensus.

--Fife Club 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I won't merge it because I never believed it could be done without destroying the Huntington article.