Talk:Rome (New York)

Rome, New York

Hi. Why did you redirect Rome (New York) to Utica? They are two separate cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Utica-Rome are two separate but adjacent cities. I see no issue with splitting them if we have any listings for Rome, much like Minneapolis-St. Paul are two articles. Currently we have nothing, but feel free to replace the redirect with a subst: of {{smallcity}} if you have Rome-specific content. K7L (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been to Rome in years (I spent a summer in Clinton, NY and went to the YMCA in Utica and then in Rome for day camp in 1972), so I have no listings to put up, but I don't see that as a good reason to redirect Rome to Utica. And they're not across a river from each other like Minneapolis and St. Paul, but actually 18 miles and 20 minutes apart by car, according to Google Maps. I think it would be better to put up a blank template with a brief description of where Rome is and leave it to others to fill in listings later than to put up a redirect, as you did, and I thought that was our policy in such cases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We do have one Rome listing in the Utica article, for an airport in "Get in". Certainly we've split closer pairs of towns (Cobourg and Port Hope, seven miles, for instance) so it's fair game if you want to template Rome (New York) as an article and copy what little info is in Utica there. K7L (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the redirect is OK as long as it's clear in the Utica article that it covers Rome. Consolidation is good—no need for more empty outlines. Please move this discussion to Talk:Utica when ready. --Peter ^Talk 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

K7L, I am satisfied with your latest edit that gives a specific description of Rome. Peter, somewhere, there needs to be a policy discussion on blank outlines vs. redirects and consolidation, because we obviously had a different impression of what the policy is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't really one—it's just something we generally leave up to the discretion of people who know an area pretty well, and I think that's OK. --Peter ^Talk 18:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There's Wikivoyage:What is an article? and "Can You Sleep There?" but that seems to be more a test of whether a place *could* be an article (at least one thing to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep). An article with three listings could meet that test. Rome, pop 30000, certainly qualifies if anyone cared to create it. The tiny outport of Dildo (Newfoundland) qualifies as there's a small hotel or two with a restaurant and somewhere to go see the ocean. Even Watertown, very comparable in size to Rome sans Utica but with a usable page of listings, might somehow qualify. Who knows. Dropping an empty template onto Oswego, Ogdensburg, Massena and every other NYS point that's blatantly missing would add no value, but finding somewhere to sleep in each can't be that awkward? It's not a question of _if_ "Rome" can be built in a day as a separate page, but _when_ this should happen. K7L (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rome and Utica are far enough apart that Rome should have its own article, even if there's only one listing. I would be surprised to find Rome listings in the Utica article. LtPowers (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Expand these links into listings and you'd likely have the makings of a usable Rome (RME  ^IATA) article: [1], [2],see: [3], [4], [5], [6], do: [7], [8], [9], eat: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], drink: [15], sleep: [16], [17], [18], nearby: Vernon [19], [20], [21], [22], go next: Utica, Syracuse.

If there's just one listing for Rome, though, don't bother. The county markets Utica-Rome as one destination. K7L (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You might have a point if the article was titled Utica-Rome, but we almost never put things 20 miles apart in the same article. I've removed the redirect and made Rome (New York) into an outline. LtPowers (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do put things over a hundred miles apart in the same article if we don't have enough info to justify additional pages. Anticosti Island is 3000 square miles, 135 miles long by 10-30 miles wide, with one village (Port Menier) of 235 people. One article. Jellystone Park is nearly 3500 square miles in three US states, so individual points within it could easily be sixty miles or more. One article. The Thousand Islands cover about forty miles of river, but most are uninhabited, contain small individual cottages or are parkland; the largest village is under-1000. (Then again, one island elsewhere on the same river did get its own article just because one random user thought it notable for some reason - dunno - but if there's something to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep that may be usable as an article.) K7L (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think we should either have two articles or rename this Utica-Rome. --Peter ^Talk 18:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have Tampa-St. Petersburg, Dallas-Fort Worth, or even Minneapolis-St. Paul. Utica and Rome are far less tied together than any of those conglomerations. And there's at least one potentially article-worthy community between them (Oriskany). LtPowers (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oriskany? A village of 1200 people[23] with one state historic site[24], a museum[25], a pizzaria[26] and a Days Inn[27]. I suppose it meets "Can You Sleep There?" but... why? I'm finding more webpages about the namesake battleship than the village. K7L (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "potentially". The point is that if we joined Rome and Utica, we'd have to toss in Oriskany too. Separate communities, separate articles; this really shouldn't be controversial. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My only objection is with creating uselessly empty outlines like "'''Oriskany''' is a small village in [[central New York]]. {{subst:smallcity}}" with no other content and then walking away. We have too many of these as it is. As a blank outline contains nothing of any actual use to the traveller, creating more of these is worse than having no article at all. K7L (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that's okay because no one has suggested creating a blank outline. LtPowers (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tampa-St. Petersburg, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Minneapolis-St. Paul don't exist because these cities easily have enough content to stand on their own. Globe-trotter (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This page might have been able to stand on its own if even half the places mentioned on the talk page were actually expanded into listings and placed in the article. Unfortunately, it looks like the page was created just to prove a point and not to provide useful information to the traveller as more than a half-year later there is still nothing to see or do, nowhere to eat and nowhere to sleep. Great article for people who really love taxis and Amtrak stations, but beyond that...? K7L (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If this could become a well written article, you just need to wait until users come along to contribute more information to it. The Los Angeles article also started with bus stops and subway stations.Globe-trotter (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a user who was based in/near Utica did come along but a few regulars here managed to take a big, healthy w:WP:BITE out of 'em before Rome could even get looked at. The timeline: user:Apocheir, with just six edits prior to Sept 2013, starts working on the CNY articles on Sept 6, is reverted by an admin on Sept 14 here for attempting to merge the Utica suburb of Clinton (New York) into Utica, attempts a discussion on Talk:Clinton (New York) on Sept 15 and the usual suspects pile on with a full-scale policy debate. His second-last edit is five hours later, his last edit (removing a Clinton NY eatery which closed) is on Sept 17 and he's gone. Silently. That leaves us with no one actually in Utica-Rome to fix this article. Again. So much for waiting for users to come along. K7L (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well apparently I was the unnamed admin who reverted the undiscussed merge. I thought that was standard practice, especially in a situation where we're talking about two different communities separated by a good distance of nothing. What would you prefer I had done? The revert had the desired effect: the user went to the talk page to discuss it. We don't know why the user stopped discussing; your assumption that it's due to a "pile-on with a full-scale policy debate" is pure speculation. But again: How could we possibly have discussed a possible merge without engaging in a discussion over whether a merge is warranted? Powers ^(talk) 15:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give some advice on how to deal with this edit, which added four villages to the list of "other destinations" without scaring away our potential new editor? Powers ^(talk) 15:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving this article

I took it upon myself to improve the Oxford (Pennsylvania) article, and ultimately had some help. That's a place I've never been to. I've actually been to Rome, NY, though not since 1972! In any case: How many of these historic attractions are currently in existence and functioning? Erie Canal Village seems to be either defunct or not worth listing, considering the fact that their website is copyright 1997 and the internal links are all 404, and it's pretty badly panned on Tripadvisor as usually not open and not worth visiting. But what about the others? Has anyone reading here been to any of them? And then there is this list.

As for restaurants and bars, they could always be taken off Yelp (Zagat has nothing), with some reference to Tripadvisor, but it would be better if someone reading has actually gone to any of those places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)