The question has been re-opened by a moderator (who wasn't me, but I can explain what happened).
Four of the close votes were for the duplicate; one was requesting the research made and presumably what was unclear about the referenced Wikipedia page.
You are right that the linked question doesn't contain an answer to the question (or anything which might be used as a reference to find an answer), and it was not a good suggestion.
A better target would have been the question Frank linked to in a comment in this Meta post. Even then the answers may not be as good as the answers which the newer question has garnered. The new question and the Buffalo-specific question are candidates to be merged as they are so closely related as to be identical. Certainly, which is the duplicate of what could be adjusted. That needs to be calculated and co-ordinated in order that it can be achieved quickly, because it will bump the questions on the front page.
Occasionally, a duplicate is nominated which really is a duplicate but the answers are not quite as complete as they might be [and consequently the closed question is not quite answered by the linked target, or it's not easy to extrapolate the solution from the answers given]. If that is so, then the answers on the open question should be enhanced to cover all applicable cases. But a duplicate does not mean that the question is exactly the same, merely that the answers are applicable.
That's not the case here, and the question has been re-opened. However as I indicate above, there may be further linking to do.