Talk:Sleepy Hollow, New York

message: Isn't it a bit contrived to have an article about Sleepy Hollow with NO mention of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"? I get that the town is more than just the story, but geez, that's what people are going to be looking for when they come to this article.  The way it is now, they're left thinking "Well, is this the right Sleepy Hollow?" Applejuicefool 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added a brief but prominent mention of the legend. Applejuicefool 13:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend? 

message: Someone needs to clear up 2 of the 3 historic buildings.  I added links which illustrate my confusion: 
# Van Cortlandt Manor seems to be in the village of Croton-on-Hudson within the Town of Cortlandt.
# The Sunnyside (Tarrytown, New York) page indicates Sunnyside is in Tarrytown and not Sleepy Hollow.
I grew up in Tarrytown, but it's been years since I've been back.  I seem to recall, though, that Sunnyside was in what is now called Sleepy Hollow.  If that's the case, then the Sunnyside page should be fixed.
I remember Van Cortlandt Manor being close by, but being in Cortlandt rather than either Sleepy Hollow or Yorktown - which also claims it here at wikipedia - looks right to me.  I really don't remember which of the 3 towns it is in fact located in.Peter (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up to above.  I have checked the Historic Hudson Valley pages on both of these and their National Register and National Park pages, too.  Van Cortlandt Manor is in Cortlandt, and Sunnyside is in Tarrytown.  Therefore, I am removing them from the Sleepy Hollow page, and will make certain they are both referenced in the towns where they are actually located.Peter (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that I now notice the article puts these "in the area" and not within Sleepy Hollow.  So I'll leave them be on this page, and the only fix I'll make will be to remove Van Cortlandt Manor from Yorktown's page.  Sorry for any confusion.Peter (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: historic buildings that belong in other towns???

message: This looks ridiculous in an article on a village!. It is distracting and almost makes the article look like one of a Fire or police force's vehicles. Why do we need four images of cars in an article on a village?? I would accept one image of a vehicle but why four? Why not show off the beautiful buildings instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like, I can make it into a collapsed gallery, as I did for Pleasantville, New York. Otherwise, looking ridiculous or reminding people of a fire department article are not justification for content removal. Sorry.--ɱ (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: In the absence of articles on individual fire departments (there are probably 45 FDs in Westchester, and only three have articles, and only the one I wrote is above Start class), the content belongs on the parent page, i.e. the municipality. Fire departments are integral to communities, especially ones so small as Sleepy Hollow. I know that for municipalities such as the neighboring Archville, their FD is the only establishment other than a single restaurant. Talk about notable, it's the only thing to the place.--ɱ (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I'll do that.--ɱ (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if you could add a bit of information on the town's services and fire/police department, at least then having multiple images of fire trucks in a gallery would look less bizarre in a village article. Also a Fire services of Westchester County, New York would be a good one to start and you can then use as many of your images as you like! I can understand you being interested in the fire services. Wikipedia really should have decent individual articles on every one of them or at least summaries by county if some aren't that notable, but I can't imagine them attracting much interest.
♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about using my images; but anyway, sure I'll look into that later today. I'm actually leaving for a photoshoot right now.--ɱ (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Further the details of the equipment the fire and police departments have is rather unencyclopedic also.  Every community has some sort of fire and police protection.  We do not need to discuss it, unless it is either vast and historic (think NYPD or LAFD), in which case it should have its own article, or unless there is something really different about it. (Think Kalamazoo, MI or Scotsdale AZ with their combined police fire departments).  Vast listings of equipment is simply too esoteric for a general encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I live not ten minutes from here, so I can tell you the significance that locals place in their fire departments. Indeed these vehicles are paraded and the departments have great pride for them; they do hold much more significance than just any municipal service, especially the many volunteer departments. As I mentioned, in Archville, there are houses, a restaurant, and the fire station/department. That makes its fire department perhaps the most notable thing there. Sleepy Hollow is not too dissimilar. As well, I believe that the images hold great encyclopedic purpose. The point of Wikipedia is to host encyclopedic content: not just text, but also images and videos. Images are often preferable to text, they say one is worth a thousand words. Also, there doesn't need to be much contextual basis, SchroCat, I already listed when the vehicles were made and what models they are, that's enough context. I'm not sure what else would be relevant. Also, Aymatth2, photographs generally have value over text by default, and any text that could be used instead would likely have no reliable sources (the trucks themselves aren't that old), and would just be deleted, while photographs hold enough evidence and don't make debatable statements to warrant a reliable source. I support the inclusion of the photographs - the article has too few, the firetrucks hold great significance to locals (who will make up most of our reader base for this article), and the trucks are interesting and part of the village's municipal services, making it encyclopedic. I see no reason why the photographs can't be included, unless policy or guidelines suggest not to (although we should ignore such policies if it betters the encyclopedia and its inclusion of encyclopedic content, even if there's little context). Also, it's not like we need to cut down this very long article.--ɱ (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to note that I'm astonished and offended that SchroCat violated the policy WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I said that I would be leaving for a while, and he and others talked about it enough for him to want to remove the photographs, and meanwhile he knew that the only opposing party was away. We were in the middle of this dispute, and therefore no actions should be taken since the status quo (with the photographs) until a fair consensus should be reached. Consensus cannot be gained before the initial opposer is able to respond to further comments from others.--ɱ (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And for the record, I'd like to say that I left because I was taking photographs at Sleepy Hollow Country Club. And I'm not sure any of you have even driven by the area, not to mention being a local and therefore knowing certain items' significance (yes, like fire departments and their vehicles).--ɱ (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , what matters to the locals is one of the least important things in making a good article about a place.  It isn't for the locals; they live there and don't need to look in the encyclopedia to find stuff out about their town.  The encyclopedia article is for someone in Boise or Bhopal trying to find info on a community.  Do you think they care whether the ladder truck is a seagrave or an american lafrance?  What needs to be in a community article regarding the public safety departments are things that make them different than any other communities, like officers killed in the line of duty, truly monumental fires that got press from out of the area, scandals that received widespread coverage, "firsts" that can be documented through reliable sources.  Pretty much, stuff that is and always will be.  There is no need to talk about the chiefs, cause they will change in a few years.  same with equipment. John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the wrong way of looking at it. Sleepy Hollow, as it got its name, is a small town that most likely haven't heard of. Neither will anyone outside of New York ever visit the pages for neighboring Tarrytown, Briarcliff Manor, Sparta, Scarborough, Elmsford, etc. Only locals will truly know about these small municipalities and communities, and they'll be interested in the details. Anyway, through my research of Briarcliff Manor, it doesn't have officers killed, monumental fires, or scandals. And neither does practically any place in Westchester County.--ɱ (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, you might find the above listed statistics interesting, but other people might find firetrucks interesting. I appreciate fire departments and equipment. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'd also like to note the following valid argument: It's easy to just sit down and say "I don't know anything of that or that or that, let's delete it!" about local people, politics, economics, religion, events, science, arts, literature, movies, theater, food and drinking/restaurants, geography, astronomy, dance, music, sports, education and whatever all around the Earth, but when it's your own hometown or native country, you've often heard of it over the local media or been taught about it at school as a child, and since you know of its local importance you know it's worth keeping.--ɱ (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: , I agree entirely, which is why I took out the rather pointless images. Alarm bells always ring when a supposed encyclopaedia includes something because of things like "the significance that locals place in their fire departments". ALL communities place significance in their fire services, and I see nothing that places the good department of Sleepy Hollow as being somehow special or notable. Four rather ordinary vehicles adds nothing to our understanding of the town. Ɱ, we are not writing an encyclopaedia for those living in a few miles radius of Sleepy Hollow: it's an international reference work and we have guidelines of what should and shouldn't be included. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I've lived in places where fire services are just that and nothing more, while in the Hudson Valley, it's a totally different story. Also, sure, we generally have a wide audience, but it's irrefutable that most people who read Pleasantville, New York live within a 30 mile radius. There's nothing about the town that'll make others read about it elsewhere. It's a small and quiet community, just like Sleepy Hollow. As well, just because the encyclopedia's international doesn't stop random, obscure, niche content from being added, nonetheless whole articles about such things being created.--ɱ (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Images of four fire vehicles are not encyclopaedic in their own right: that's about as blunt as it gets. yes, of course we have random, obscure and niche articles, but they, and their content need to be notable, and these four very ordinary vehicles are not, in the wider scheme of things, notable. And whether a local community thinks highly of its fire service or not... so what? Is that really encyclopaedic? Not by an awfully long shot! - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone over this before, but I'll go over it again: these vehicles are the primary instruments of a municipal service. So inclusion in the article about the municipality is encyclopedic and correct on all accounts. Please read all of my above statements, half of which nobody's addressed yet.--ɱ (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Straws and clutching. Shall we have a picture of the rubblish lorry and the mayors desk too? The traffic lights in the centre of town? I think you need to think about what an encyclopaedia is actually for, and I'll start you off with the answer: it's not to host your own images of some rather ordinary fire vehicles, especially in a section devoid of context, explanation of encyclopaedic value. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As said earlier, it's not about that they're my own images. That has no significance to me. And, yes, the mayor's desk would be interesting. You clearly have an opinion that fire services aren't any more notable than trash disposal services, and because of that, clearly I just can't get through to you.--ɱ (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Because you followed the policy WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I am following WP:IAR to the letter. These images improve Wikipedia.--ɱ (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That has to be one of the most childish responses I've ever had the misfortune to hear on Wikipedia. Your images in themselves  are not improving this article, and it would  be more beneficial if you added reliably-sourced text to the article, rather than the rather limp photos of four rather ordinary and boring fire vehicles. - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying, you blame me for not following policy; I just showed you that the reverse is true. And please go take a look at this thing, it's neither ordinary nor boring. Regardless, you can't justify removing content because of your opinion that "reliably-sourced text is better".--ɱ (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content:  It's not my opinion. We're an encyclopaedia, not a photgraph album. Ɱ, I am not attaqcking you, and I suggest you are a little less defensive with this: if you listen to what several people are telling you, it may aid you understanding of the encyclopaedia and turn you into a better author. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Schrocat, you're taking that out of context, it is clear that was written to tell people to include relevant images (e.g. not put a helicopter randomly in a science article), that all photographs have to have understandable relevance. And I think we all understand how Sleepy Hollow FD photographs relate to the municipality. I may appear defensive because I solely support the photographs' inclusion, but I can assure you that I objectively support their inclusion. I haven't noted above that at the time, the FD images were the only photographs in the article, making their inclusion obvious. Articles need illustrations, even if there isn't yet too much description. Aymatth2, that makes more sense than most of the "It's against policy!" arguments, which I described as limiting the improvement of the encyclopedia. How about this as a good balance; there is only one chief's car and the fire engine, so there shouldn't still be an issue with WP:Gallery.--ɱ (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not out of context: it's something that tells us to use images when appropriate, to illustrate the text that is used and to further people's understanding of a subject. Is my understanding improved by four images of fire vehicles with no contextual text at all? No. (Even worse, do the staggering TEN images of similar vehicles help me understand Pleasantville, New York? No, no, no! - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps you understand the fire department, which is a key municipal department. And many will find interest in fire vehicles just as much as they will a list of notable places or people, which by the way doesn't have context describing when or where the people lived, and where the notable places are. So by your reasoning, the "notable landmarks" and "notable residents" sections should be deleted for having absolutely no context. Anyway, as I told Dr. Blofeld earlier, in lieu of a fire department article, a list and photos of the fire department's vehicles rightly goes on its parent page. When an FD article is created, that content can and should be moved to the more specific article.--ɱ (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

text: *Best to write the text first, then add a picture if appropriate. One is enough. A picture taken in Sleepy Hollow would be preferable, e.g. fire station with vehicles outside. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is best, but we can't go with the ideal situation. There aren't any free images of Sleepy Hollow's fire station with or without vehicles, and relevant text to the vehicles will be difficult to find. Images with such descriptive captions are sufficient. Aymatth2, isn't my sandbox that I linked above sufficient for you? And one is certainly not enough. Fire departments consist of more than just engines, and need to be represented in full. There are pumpers, hook and ladder trucks, heavy rescue vehicles, ambulances, utility trucks, chief's cars, and often even department antiques. All should be documented and catalogued fully.--ɱ (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One is sufficient. Any information that is also included will also need to carry reliable citations. That is especially true of the notable local people you've removed: as per WP:BLP, these really do need to have supporting citations. - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but you both likely wouldn't have said "one is enough" back when I added the images. They were the only photographs on the entire article, which still desperately needs images, regardless of slight redundancies.--ɱ (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 images of different vehicles