Talk:Valhalla, New York

Population and density

It cannot both be true that Valhalla's population has precipitously declined and its population density has vastly increased, unless of course Valhalla's area has vastly decreased (or its population is incredibly obese, maybe?). Which it is, I don't know, but research must be done. The decline from 5,379 to 3,162, 2000 to 2010, can't possibly correlate to 704.9/ previous density and 3,900/ something current density.

Dstlascaux (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Vahalla and mythology: The last edit on this page was a mere deletion and not a contribution. But the deleting tag suggested that there is no link between mythology and Vahalla. However, the name itself comes from mythology and there is a section in the article about links to Norse legends (mythology). So what's with the removal of the link? MPLX/MH 16:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The mere fact that Valhalla, New York, was named after something in mythology does not make the article about mythology anymore than an article about Nike tennis shoes would be an article about mythology. The alleged links to Norse legends section of this article also contains no mythology. At most it has some bits of folklore here and there, but there is no mythology content in this article to speak of. Even if there were a sentence or two of mythology it wouldn't elevate the whole article into something that should be mentioned on the mythology category page. DreamGuy 18:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion, but it flies in the face of the obvious: Valhalla is mythology and the reason why this place was named Valhalla is based upon mythology. This action resulted in at least one person from the area carrying that mythology a stage further by incorporating it into a murder. Clive Cussler also embellished the same mythology to create his novel. So according to your opinion Cussler's work is not a novel based upon mythology? That raises a chicken and the egg question: which came first, the mythology imported to name the place, or Cussler's novel which could not have been written without the first act having taken place? There is no suggestion that the primary link is to mythology, that is why any article can be listed under several categories and mythology is certainly one of them. Perhaps other editors should be asked about how expansive the category section should be with regards to any article on Wikipedia? I thought that the idea was to make as many related links as possible show up for search purposes. It is up to the searcher whether they think that the material is useful to them, but at least they should know that it exists. With your strict interpretation all interesting links would be removed. But as I stated = that is your opinion, but should you force it upon everyone else? Let's see how others interpret the application of the category section. MPLX/MH 19:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Valhalla is mythology and the reason why this place was named Valhalla is based upon mythology" -- And the article on Valhalla can and should have a Mythology category of come sort, but this one obviously should not. Your other arguments about it inspiring a book and so forth still do not show anything about actual mythology... unless any and every book, TV show, movie and so forth inspired in some small part by mythology should also be tagged with a mythology cateogry. What you are proposing is highly impractical and counterintuitive for finding relevant information in this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 19:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Usually searches come up on search engines by relevance. So the fact that there are other categories listed indicate that it is not a primary source. But sometimes secondary sources can be very useful. With your approach only primary sources are available. With regards to your other comments, yes indeed, many books are tagged in exactly this way to give a reader an idea of what the contents of the book are all about. Besides which, none of this would have been possible if the postmaster's wife had simply picked the name of a real place or made up a name with no meaning. Valhalla has a very specific meaning and the fact that this unincorporated area is littered with graveyards only expands the mythology of Valhalla itself as a subject. When you add a best selling novel that features Valhalla in its title and which refers to Valhalla, New York, then this place is taking on a mythology all of its own. Now compound all of that with a weird murder in which the corpse is transported hundreds of miles from the crime scene so that it can be disposed of according to Viking mythology with reference to Valhalla, then it seems pretty clear to me that Valhalla, New York should be linked to the category of mythology. But let's hear from others about how extensive category listing should be on any Wikipedia article. MPLX/MH 19:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you, because what you are arguing is so outrageously wrong that if you don't already see it, you probably never will. Articles I have seen that are losoely based upon mythology but not mythology are not labeled the way you claim, and any that are will eventually get changed as other editors take a look at them. I look forward to other editors showing up here to set you straight. DreamGuy 21:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I should probably add that other editors have already weighed in on how categories should be applied and wrote the FAQ document Wikipedia:Categorization in which we learn that "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate." and "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." DreamGuy 21:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I will leave the subject alone after these two observations. 1) Please don't start getting shrill and personal when discussing something: ("I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you, because what you are arguing is so outrageously wrong that if you don't already see it, you probably never will.") That was uncalled for.

2) Your second comment with a quotation seems to agree with my own position: ("Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.") So now we are faced with your interpretation and my interpretation of "self-evident". I believe that the contents and sub-head of the article are indeed "self-evident" in this regard. MPLX/MH 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uncalled for? It was simply stating what was obvious. If you choose to be offended, that's your issue, not mine, and that's apparently been the problem from the very start with your first comments to this page.

I would argue that it's more self-evident that the category clearly does not belong, but the fact that there's any controversy at all means it shouldn't be there, by Wikipedia policy. No matter how you argue it, the category tag shouldn't be there, either by common sense or by policy. The only way you would be right would be if the policy said that in a controversy the category should remain, or that the policy said feel free to label anything and everything with a category no matter how tenuous and thin the rationale. Policy and commmon sense both contradict your view, so you never had a leg to stand on. DreamGuy 00:29, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Removed John Pierce from notable people

John Pierce was listed as a Notable Person because he had been an honorary mayor of Valhalla. His entry linked to a disambiguation page. Despite a thorough search, I was unable to find any John Pierce identified with this town.

Curious

Hello! I'm curious as to why there's an emergency vehicle gallery here...just thought it was a bit bizarre! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It's part of the hamlet's services, and because it doesn't have it's own government, its fire services are actually one of very few things that distinguish the community officially by name. ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)