Talk:Fairport (New York)

Cleaned up
I removed the sarcastic comment about the lift bridge and the flowery language. —The preceding comment was added by GaryGo (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there, Gary; I believe we're former co-workers. I understand why you made the edits you did, but we do usually try to maintain a lighthearted tone around here; a little sarcasm is usually not a big deal, and we try to keep the language conversational (which can, I suppose, read as flowery for someone more used to an encyclopedic tone).  Powers (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The tone article specifically warns against sarcasm ("lift bridge ... installed to waste motorists' time"), and also against flowery language ("what every old canalside village aspires to be"). In your defense, it's hard to be lighthearted about a lift bridge. GaryGo (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but I fear you've gone too far in the other direction. If the tone of my wording (specifically regarding the aspirations of other canalside villages) was too flowery, I'd rather see it toned down a bit than excised entirely.  Powers (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No one visits Fairport based on a flowery or lighthearted description in WikiVoyage. At best, WikiVoyage points out a place to eat to someone already visiting. But, I wouldn't complain again if someone were to restore the floweriness. GaryGo (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The best Fairport joke ever
A husband and wife were staying at the Fairport Hilton. The husband left to get a soda and the wife went to bed. Just then, the lift bridge's warning horn sounded, so loud it knocked the wife out of bed. She called the front desk to complain and the male clerk came to the room. The wife told the clerk to get into the bed, to prove her point. Just then, the husband returned. "What are you doing in bed with my wife?" demanded the husband. The clerk responded, "Would you believe we're waiting for the lift bridge?" (Apologies to Henny Youngman, who probably never visited Fairport.) GaryGo (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey mey2008
Hey User:mey2008, I understand that many of the Perinton churches are outside the village, but if you were so all fired up to delete outlying locations, couldn't you have created a Perinton page? I put the churches in Fairport because no one searches for Perinton. I guess I can create the Perinton page, but geez. GaryGo (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I have it undone. More like Yellow Pages for churchgoers now. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Joachim does have a point; one of Wikivoyage's explicit non-goals is to avoid duplicating the yellow pages. We should probably pare the list of congregations down to a few essentials, or else simply give an overview of the available options without listing details. That said, Gary is correct that this article should probably cover the entire town of Perinton and not just the village of Fairport.  Powers (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I really didn't mean for mey2008 to restore the Perinton churches, and I think it would be AOK to have a Perinton article with good links from this Fairport article. ALSO, I hope to get rid of that notice at the bottom that says it's just an outline with not enough information; I'm not sure how to do that for Fairport, if the current article isn't good enough. I guess I'm confused with the notion that it's OK to list SOME (businesses, churches, sites, etc.), but not ALL, because we supposedly don't want to look like the Yellow Pages. Who decides when there are just enough restaurants listed, but not too many? GaryGo (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like everything else on a wiki, it's determined by consensus. Right now, I doubt anyone would complain if we upgraded the article status to Usable. There's no set threshold, nor any automated process for it. It's just whenever someone notices that an article marked Outline is good enough to be Usable. Powers (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like everything else on a wiki, it's determined by consensus. Right now, I doubt anyone would complain if we upgraded the article status to Usable. There's no set threshold, nor any automated process for it. It's just whenever someone notices that an article marked Outline is good enough to be Usable. Powers (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)