Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York/Archive 1

Untitled
Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 22:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this the best town?
Yayyyyy! Doesn't cut it.

Is the guy screaming yay even from this town? But just to verify, it's really nice and has a really nice school district. I don't think I've ever seen a homeless person there. It's just a nice looking town. Small, but nice. And to verify, we're not part of Ossining, we're just located inside the area that Ossining inhabits. I'd know, I live there. MaulYoda

That's incorrect... There is a village of Ossining and a village of Briarcliff. Both are located in the town of Ossining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.77.121 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Briarcliff History
There doesn't seem to be an area for the tons of history which is relevant to Briarcliff Manor like the Law Cup for the 'First American International Road Race', the Olympic trials in the 1920's, Briarcliff Farms, or even the Marguerite Clark film shown and filmed in part at the Briarcliff Lodge. NYT archives has TONS of articles from the early 1900's detailing the events of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.247.159 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Grammar
The following passage needs to be revised for clarity, but I am unsure what the original writer meant to convey and don't want to guess:

C.H.R Sjölin inherited Briarcliff Manor, Holly Hill the astor house, after Mrs. Astor's death, now used it as his private home, but also to the Astor family heirs who wish to study art, or theater. CHR Sjölin moved in late 2008, to Scandinavia after a violent car accident. Residence unknown.

--Skb8721 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging in Briarcliff Middle School
It has been suggested that Briarcliff Middle School be merged here. I would agree. I see nothing notable about the middle school to justify its own article.--Arg342 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well - the only notable point is that the middle school has won the Blue Ribbon award, but that is not even mentioned in the school article.  " Pepper "  @ 22:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Residents with articles
This is a repository of Briarcliff residents with articles on the English Wikipedia, for which I cannot find a reliable source.


 * Robert A. Cook
 * Robert Von Ancken
 * Brad Harrison

-- ɱ   (talk)   03:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also Ken Noda. ɱ  (talk · vbm  · coi) 15:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on expanded article
Commenting here at Ɱ's request; as I'd said before, when the current version was still a userspace draft, this is superlative work. I'd be very curious to know how long it took you to research and write. Meantime, I've learned a lot about the history of Briarcliff, NY here, and I also dig the NB inclusions. I wasn't even aware of that feature, so I've learned something else, too.

Now, I'll admit that I still have not read the entire thing, and this in fact brings me to the one (and only) criticism I have regarding this article. It's just too long for most purposes; this is a very advanced overview of Briarcliff, not a basic one. To absorb its information, one would have to set aside some considerable reading time.

By way of example, I see you've invoked, I presume, to keep the table of contents from becoming unwieldy. Likewise, the article is now approaching 127,000 bytes, which is well above the 100 Kb suggested by the WP:TOOBIG guideline as "Almost certainly should be divided". Given that, I think you should in fact refer to WP:SUMMARY and turn this into a collection of articles such as History of..., Geography of..., Culture of... and simplify the headings here.

Oh, and a very minor point: I tend to invoke for articles with a great deal of citations—and at 155 I would certainly say this qualifies.

All the above said, this is amazing work. Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I deeply appreciate your praise of my work, and indeed I have been writing the article nearly every day since September. The article is long, and I plan to combat that by creating articles for most notable houses of worship and other notable places (and especially a History of... article), which will involve moving over content. You are correct that the article is 127K, although the article's readable proze size is 49kb, which falls mid-way in WP:TOOBIG. As well, I determined that an advanced overview was proper, given that I created a brief and readable article for the Simple English Wikipedia (which will require further development as well). As for the references, I have them set to divide at 30 em, which seems to work better for monitors of different proportions than, but correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I would appreciate your reassessment of the article, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks again, --  ɱ   (talk)   14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you planning to take this to GA soon? Although I'd imagine it will pass that (unless length becomes an issue, and I take your point about the readable size being just 49 Kb) I realize I can't just make it GA by fiat. However, I'm inclined to reassess it at the less-often used B-level, which seems inadequate but better than its current C. I'll go ahead and do that now. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to it. Thanks. -- ɱ   (talk)   15:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What's with the teeny-tiny images?
Past a certain point, the widths are set to 120px wide. That's incredibly small; smaller than the default. Any reason? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had this same discussion a few times before and have since changed many to the default. Many of the images are small to not mis-align section headings, although most images are at the default size, all others are either a bit smaller to (as mentioned above) not hit into the next section. And many of the images are portrait-orientation rather than landscape, so the default is smaller, using that 'upright' parameter.


 * From my understanding, most images should be at the default size, although "Images in which detail is relatively unimportant...can be smaller" (From WP:MOS). For example, the David Ogilby photo shouldn't have to be 220px. There's no good reason for it to be either, it's not really important enough to be larger, looks bad and worsens the formatting when it's larger, and readers won't care to see a larger image of his portrait, rather than with images of places and landscapes, where larger sizes always help. The other small photos have similar qualities so they work better smaller. Also, two of the smaller images are across from the infobox, so I didn't want the text in between to be squeezed even more tightly by larger images.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that if you have a more modern, wider screen (I'm at about 1400 px wide) the small images look terrible, lost in a sea of space around them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly i believe that is a minor problem in comparison to the ones I've stated above. Very few people have such large screens, and the trend is going towards smaller laptops and mobile use, not larger screens, so the problem is shrinking away as we speak. Still, that problem is bound to exist, regardless of the article. Even the 220px default image size will appear very small on some Macs, large third-party monitors, televisions, etc.-- ɱ    (talk)  01:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the mobile site overrides image widths anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The mobile site does, but not all mobile viewers use the mobile site. I for one hate it because of the lack of usability, so it's still a problem for people who do that, and in the other situations I mentioned.-- ɱ    (talk)  01:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Less than 30 miles?
The article has, 'less than 30 miles (48 km) north of New York City'. Why 'less than'? 2.103.36.123 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The 'Geography' section has 'Briarcliff Manor is 30 miles (48 km) north of Manhattan.' but no ref for this. I will change the lead to at least agree with the main body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two sources that list it as less than 30 miles north of Manhattan, here and here. The distance will not always be the same, it depends on where you are in Briarcliff and where you want to go to in New York, due to Briarcliff and New York/Manhattan both being more than a single square mile. I will cite the Comprehensive Plan to that information and change the lede back.-- ɱ    (talk)  13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Although 'less than 30 miles' may be suitable for a promotional brochure it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. What does it mean?  Does it mean a few yards short of 30 miles, 29, miles, 20 miles, or 1 mile? All are less then 30 miles. We should give the best sourced estimate that we have of an actual distance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the cited source does it say 'less than 30 miles'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On Google Maps, roughly the most Southern point in Briarcliff Manor, around Pocantico Lake Park, to the most northern point in New York City, roughly the Riverdale Post Office, is 17.4 miles for a lower bound, along Broadway/Rt. 9 which is about as straight a shot as there is by car. If we look for the Northern tip of Manhattan (Spuyten Duyvil or so), it would be about 23 miles. South Briarcliff to W 59th St. would be a little over 30 miles. Obviously, if you live further north in Briarcliff, your 30 mile point would then become 125th St. or whatever it is. Roughly the most Northern point in Briarcliff, near Chilmark Shopping Center (~2000 Pleasantville Rd) to Bowling Green, is just under 40 miles. Now this is just my back-of-the-envelope explanation for "less than 30 miles" to essentially mean "approximately 30 miles from the rough center of one to the other," although it sounds like "less than 40 miles" is an average case, with the lower bound actually "less than 20." I'm not sure how we normally do distances like this - geographic center to center, city hall to city hall? Is there a source that says "about 30" instead? Andrevan@ 00:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your reply, Andrevan. Both sources that I have listed above are government plans, often mandated by the state or county, one being a comprehensive plan for municipal development, the other being a hazard mitigation plan. Neither of these are at all intended for the general public or are promotional in any manner. Reading through either document would make that more than evident. So you can be assured that by the government stating that the village is "less than 30 miles north of Manhattan", they're not trying to push the idea that they're close-by or anything, they're merely stating that fact as a useful point of reference for the location of the village. That is why I chose to mention it so early on in the lead paragraph. In response to your other question: in the Comprehensive Plan, it is on page 3. On the mitigation plan, it is on page 1.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not challenging the distance measurement, just the unencyclopedic way that it is stated. You would simply never see the distance between two places being described as 'less than 30 miles' in a written encyclopedia, unless some other point was being made.


 * There is nothing wrong with saying 'around 30 miles' or 'approximately 30 miles', most people would understand this to mean, 'within a mile or so' but 'less than 30 miles' sounds like some thing from an advertisement for the place, 'in the countryside but less than 30 miles from NYC'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that you're reading too far into it. And that is supported by the fact that I've never even seen it used in promotional material, that the government itself uses it as a recognizable relative location to state in its formal plans.-- ɱ    (talk)  09:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is just unencyclopedic and unhelpful. What is the use of saying 'less than 30 miles'? It could be anything from zero to 29.9 miles.  Can we not just say 'about 30 miles'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I agree with you, even if I think you're reading too far into it and that readers aren't dumb, that they'll still know it's around 30 miles.-- ɱ    (talk)  21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So can we change it to 'around 30 miles' then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose.-- ɱ    (talk)  22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes and I take my hat off to you as the first person that I have seen on WP actually be persuaded to change their mind. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's funny, Wikipedians really are too stubborn too often. I don't recall pursuading many unless I cite some policy.-- ɱ    (talk)  15:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Information
Hello future readers; here's some further information that may help in your reading or understanding this article:
 * First, a list of mayors and their tenures:


 * 1) William DeNyse Nichols (1902-05)
 * 2) Walter W. Law, Jr. (1905-18)
 * 3) Henry H. Law (1918-36)
 * 4) Charles H. Schuman (1936-49)
 * 5) J. Henry Ingham (1949-51)
 * 6) John A. Riegel (1951-55)
 * 7) Alexander M. Hunter (1955-59)
 * 8) Robert C. Plumb (1959-61)
 * 9) Howard Holmes (1961-63)
 * 10) Emile H. Munier (1963-67)
 * 11) Fred H. Kossow (1967-69)
 * 12) Frederick G. Butler (1969-71)
 * 13) Chester L. Fisher, Jr. (1971-77)
 * 14) George F. Kennard (1977-83)
 * 15) Edward T. Dorsey (1983-90)
 * 16) William A. Wetzel (1990-92)
 * Freda Delton c. 1994
 * Eugene Bifano c. 1996
 * Keith Austin (1997-2003)
 * Peter Chatzky (2003-2005)
 * William J. Vescio (2004?-2015)
 * Lori A. Sullivan (2015-present)


 * As of this writing, honestly almost none of them are likely notable, so if this info ever gets used on the mainspace, don't bother red-linking. This information was taken from Mary Cheever's 1990 Briarcliff book, cited in this article. And mayors since then will be added, and can be found on the Web.
 * Next I should note that as of today, 09/13/2014, this article uses Template:Rp to cite page numbers for heavily-used book sources. Any text in the article which is cited to those books will usually have a note next to the citation, reading (pXXX), to indicate the page where that information was found.
 * Another note: this article uses Template:TOC limit. I did that because otherwise the TOC would be abnormally large. The TOC limit template is designed to reduce the TOC on long/many-headed articles like this.
 * Also, for anyone interested in the People's Caucus, I recently found these pages, ones which I believe are not indexed onto Google's web search, and therefore very difficult to find. Here's the People's Caucus website: link and here's a history of the organization: link.
 * I was never able to find any official information on demonyms, but the 1952 village centennial history book uses the generic term 'villager' often, and also uses 'Briarcliff Manorites' at least once.
 * The same book, on page 64, also says "Speaking of books, Briarcliff Manorites do their full share in producing them. A list which is probably incomplete names forty-one authors of Briarcliff Manor residence; their total output has been 181 volumes." Probably worth mentioning somewhere on this article...


 * Also, I have a large number of maps, books, pamphlets, photos, and other information relating to Briarcliff Manor and its entities and surrounds; email me or write on my talk page if you're interested.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Source concerns
Before I take this to FAR, giving opportunity to the main editor, who has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie. Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to me to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. The nominator admits to writing for a number of the cited sources. Notification here as a procedural matter before FAR. Ceoil (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why on earth are you pushing this here now too? Can't you keep things at the FAC or do you just want to bother in further channels? I never admitted COI to this as I don't have any. And I mentioned why those sources are RSes on the FAC, can you provide any clue why you disagree or are you going to just keep complaining and hoping I did this? And as for
 * Okay, stop. "The nominator admits to writing for a number of the cited sources." is libel. I have stated to the contrary so many times, and yet you state this. Your credibility ends here. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Your credibility ends here" is really the best argument you have in favour of the cited sources? Hmm. Ceoil (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating with someone who intentionally uses libel against me. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you using a legal threat to suppress a fact you admitted to about 3 hours ago? For the record I am initiating the FAR precisely because you use shaky sourcing in an a past FAC to defend poor sourcing in a current FAC. I made this clear along along; and anyway, This article needs to be challenged, in its own right. Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "legal threat"? "admitted"? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You cant just say "libel", twice, and then just walk away. Words have meaning; or were you just joking. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Libel is the term for intentionally giving false statements that harm a person's reputation. Your statement does harm my reputation. And I didn't threaten anything or anyone, I said I won't talk to you if you libel in accusing me of admitting self-citing when I admitted no such thing (nor did it). ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also your notification here doesn't meet the requisite attempt to settle the matter here. You need to attempt to settle concerns before you open an FAR. You should look at the contexts where I cite, as context is king when it comes to determining a reliable source. I'm also surprised you include things like American FactFinder, a US Census Bureau website. Please do some investigating. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Briarcliff Manor, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813120716/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1468&ResourceType=Structure to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1468&ResourceType=Structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504031920/http://www.isualum.org/index.cfm?nodeID=7761&audienceID=1 to http://www.isualum.org/index.cfm?nodeID=7761&audienceID=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ack.net/Adelson0811.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filmindependent.org/about/board-of-directors/tom-ortenberg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Briarcliff Manor, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140817205710/http://www.focusfeatures.com/article/hudson_valley_movies/print to http://www.focusfeatures.com/article/hudson_valley_movies/print
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813083446/https://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=174574 to https://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=174574

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Information about this article
I've compiled some further information that may help in your reading or understanding this article:
 * This article uses Template:Rp to cite page numbers for heavily-used book sources. Any article text that cites those books will usually have a note next to its citation, reading (pXXX), to indicate the page where that information was found.
 * This article also uses Template:TOC limit; otherwise the TOC would be abnormally large. The TOC limit template is designed to reduce the TOC on long/many-headed articles like this.
 * Also, for anyone interested in the People's Caucus, I recently found these pages, ones which I believe are not indexed onto Google's web search, and therefore very difficult to find. Here's the People's Caucus website: link and here's a history of the organization: link.
 * I was never able to find any official information on demonyms, but the 1952 village centennial history book uses the generic term 'villager' often, and also uses 'Briarcliff Manorites' at least once.
 * The same book, on page 64, also says "Speaking of books, Briarcliff Manorites do their full share in producing them. A list which is probably incomplete names forty-one authors of Briarcliff Manor residence; their total output has been 181 volumes." it could be worth mentioning somewhere in this article.
 * It may be useful to provide a list of mayors and their tenures; this information cannot be found in full elsewhere, as far as I've seen:


 * 1) William DeNyse Nichols (1902-05)
 * 2) Walter W. Law, Jr. (1905-18)
 * 3) Henry H. Law (1918-36)
 * 4) Charles H. Schuman (1936-49)
 * 5) J. Henry Ingham (1949-51)
 * 6) John A. Riegel (1951-55)
 * 7) Alexander M. Hunter (1955-59)
 * 8) Robert C. Plumb (1959-61)
 * 9) Howard Holmes (1961-63)
 * 10) Emile H. Munier (1963-67)
 * 11) Fred H. Kossow (1967-69)
 * 12) Frederick G. Butler (1969-71)
 * 13) Chester L. Fisher, Jr. (1971-77)
 * 14) George F. Kennard (1977-83)
 * 15) Edward T. Dorsey (1983-90)
 * 16) William A. Wetzel (1990-92)
 * Freda Delton c. 1994
 * Eugene Bifano c. 1996
 * Keith Austin (1997-2003)
 * Peter Chatzky (2003-2005)
 * William J. Vescio (2004?-2015)
 * Lori A. Sullivan (2015-present)


 * As of this writing, honestly almost none of them are likely notable, so if this information ever is used on the mainspace, don't red-link the names. The pre-1990 mayors are cited to Cheever's The Changing Landscape.


 * I also have a large number of maps, books, pamphlets, photos, and other information relating to Briarcliff Manor and its entities and surrounds; email me or write on my talk page if you're interested. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be more suitable for a user sub-page than the article's talk page? &mdash; JJ  Be  rs  15:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone requested I clarify some of this on the talk page for them and future readers, so I did. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Briarcliff Manor, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140817023137/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=101787 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=101787
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816180843/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=14042 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=14042
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818122913/http://observer.com/1999/04/trumps-garish-golf-course-plan-disrupts-quiet-westchester-town/ to http://observer.com/1999/04/trumps-garish-golf-course-plan-disrupts-quiet-westchester-town/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Image placement
All of the images from "Progressive era to present day"...until the end of the article, should be right justified, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. There is no need to stagger the images left and right; there is plenty of space in the article to accommodate on the right side. Several sections actually begin with an image instead of text. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The full details of our past conversation about this is here: User talk:Magnolia677, however this seems to be accurately summarized here:


 * Thanks, ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would just use whatever looks best aesthetically in the article. The varying MOS interpretations make it seem that it is up to the editor to decide on how to position the images. Given the images look just fine, I would just leave the images as they are. There is no reason to put effort into re-positioning images when other articles like Colorado River and cutthroat trout also stagger their images. Personally, I prefer staggering images as well, and I always thought that it how it is supposed to be done. However, it is all up to personal preference. For this article, I would keep the status quo. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Historical Population Needs to Use a Standard Template For Encyclopedic Uniformity and Bot-Update Purposes
To the styled "M" guy, We've fought over this before. This time please just leave it (I will switch to the more versatile and customizable  as a courtesy so you can avoid it being "too big" if it bothers you; if you want to work on adding extra options to the Template to allow further customization, that is fine too. It is indisputably more important to ensure that 10,000+ place pages can be easily updated than that 1 single page looks a little "prettier." Thanks. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want to argue just to argue. I disagree with some of your points, however I have no problem with this relatively new horizontal format. I still have a minor wish that it could be formatted to match other tables and vice versa, but that's not a big deal. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks (I didn't know about this horizontal format in the past). DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to only have been created this past February, which our prior disagreement considerably predated. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Briarcliff Manor, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203023415/http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Curling/Athletes/ST/Bill-Stopera to http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Curling/Athletes/ST/Bill-Stopera

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of Geobox with Infobox settlement
and I have worked on a conversion of the current Geobox to Infobox settlement, keeping virtually all of the information in the Geobox. There's currently a consensus to deprecate Geobox for towns/settlements/administrative division, and replace it with Infobox settlement. Let's discuss and see if we can reach consensus about performing this replacement on the Briarcliff Manor article amongst interested editors. —hike395 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Besides the inclusion and exclusion of certain parameters, there are formatting issues. -- ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The caption for the main image has no spacing above it.
 * The symbol and seal have no editable names (and the symbol is not a flag).
 * The nickname and motto use "(s)" which is not ideal.
 * The font size for all parameters appears slightly bigger, taking up more space.
 * The maps appear much further up, which is far from ideal.


 * Let's talk about parameters, first. and I preserved essentially all of the information in the Geobox. The only differences are:
 * Briarcliff Manor Public Library only occurs once in the infobox, as a wikilink in the image caption. I don't think it adds anything to our readers to appear twice.
 * We removed the highly technical description of the highest point in the village. I believe that the coordinates have as much information as the description and link to a map: I think this is friendlier to our readers.
 * Hudson River is now wikilinked at the Lowest Point in the village, so that information is preserved.
 * Note that there is a bug in Geobox where the founder's name does not appear. This is fixed in the Infobox, so there's actually more information in the Infobox than in the Geobox.
 * Link to Wikimedia commons really belongs in the external links section, per WP:MOSSIS.
 * As for the formatting, I can take a look at these and respond in a bit. —hike395 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've put the "Village Symbol" and "Village Seal" text below the images now in Infobox settlement, but had to swap the order of the images to do it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: caption spacing. Hey, ! Great catch! That is a longstanding formatting bug in the Infobox, for which I just published a fix. So now all 480K+ settlements will benefit from your feedback. See above for change. —hike395 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * absolutely amazing work!!! Due to the previous debate on this issue I'm not going to make any edits to the page, but this looks perfect to me! I say do it. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Infobox settlement" is used more frequently on US articles, and its parameters are well-documented at Template:Infobox settlement. This makes is friendlier to editors.  "Infobox settlement" also has a cleaner aesthetic. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it isn't just US articles... There aren't any articles about a populated place using geobox anymore. This is the only one. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah...yes. All the other articles using it are rivers and so forth. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I still support using the infobox, as I always have, given the necessary changes. I agree with hike395's parameter rationales as well. I'll give my official support once these changes can be made:
 * The nickname and motto use "(s)" which is clumsy and not ideal.
 * The font size for all parameters appears slightly bigger, taking up more space. (not crucial for me)
 * The maps appear much further up, which is far from ideal.
 * "Elevation" and "Highest elevation" should not have a horizontal line between them, and time zone can be joined with area code and zip code. In general, Geobox has fewer lines breaking things up, and therefore looks much cleaner. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 04:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So, making those kind of changes in the infobox is very difficult. The infobox is used on 480K+ articles, including 41 Featured Articles. Any noticable formatting changes (like changing the map locations) would have to get consensus at WT:WikiProject Cities and Template talk:Infobox settlement. Altering the horizontal lines may be minor enough to simply implement via WP:BRD.
 * The sheer scale of the infobox usage makes it difficult to change. For example, nickname is used on 7095 articles and motto is used on 5540 articles. In order to get rid of the "(s)", we would have to create parameters like nickname1, nickname2, etc. And then someone would need to go through and semi-automatically edit thousands of articles to split the comma-separated lists into separate parameters. It would require many days of work.
 * Let me turn it around. Take a look at the list of 41 FAs, articles like Seattle, San Francisco, or Chicago. Like Ɱ, editors spent a lot of time bringing those up to FA quality. They've used the current formatting of Infobox settlement as it is, apparently without interfering with the FA quality of the article. Is there something about the content of this article that makes the formatting unacceptable while being acceptable for Boston? —hike395 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Later --- I agree that the line between "Elevation" and "Highest Elevation" is a bug in the infobox. I just published a fix. Thanks again for helping thousands of articles!
 * The line between the timezone and the area code looks like it is by design. Take a look at the Infobox testcases. Whenever there are bullets below a label (like Government, Area, or Population), there is a line after all of the bullets. Timezone has a single bullet ("Summer"). The design logic of the infobox requires a line after it. —hike395 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even later --- After thinking about it, I agree that Infobox settlement has too many images/map crowding the top of the infobox, which pushes the quantitative data about the settlement down "below the fold". I'll come up with a proposal (similar to Infobox mountain. Let's see if we can get consensus for that (relatively large) change. —hike395 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a workaround for the nickname/motto parameters - we can create an optional parameter (that defaults to no if left out), that would just be like "motto_single = yes", which would make it display without "(s)". Is that okay and doable? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work. I can add those parameters.
 * If you want to see a prototype of what maps-at-the-bottom in the infobox would look like, check out before-and-after at Template:Infobox settlement/testcases. Feedback welcome. I'll bring it up at Template talk:Infobox settlement after I've written more test cases. —hike395 (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This should probably be brought up as an option, not a mandatory change. I bet some people will argue the maps are better up top, to quickly show where the settlement is. I however think it yields a lot of image clutter and makes the infobox unbalanced visually. As for the Briarcliff article, I'm ready to publish this version, except I'd love the option to hide the "(s)"s, and is there some way to change "Etymology" to "Named for"? I think the Geobox wording makes much more sense and works much better, in this specific context at least. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL. I like what has done with hacking Infobox settlement to make it work better with this article. Why don't you go ahead and use that version in the article today? I will propose the global change to Infobox settlement per your suggestion. It may take more time for the Infobox settlement global issue to get resolved, so we might as well make  happy by deprecating the last Geobox for settlements. I'll enable the option to hide the "(s)" as soon as the map rearrangement is resolved one way or another. In other words, I'll add the motto_single parameter regardless of the outcome of the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

can we please put this issue to bed already? The template works for 480,000 pages. Whether or not ONE user give's their official support is not relevant. The template has been replaced on EVERY other settlement page. One user is holding up the entire process because he prefers the look of an old and deprecated template over that of one of the most widely used infoboxes on Wikipedia. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Calm down and be patient. We're working to fix the discrepancies between two similar templates that have been long-overdue. I'm already basically ready to switch over. Don't mind us both working together to improve some things; go work on some other project now. This argument is long over; we're working on this well... ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Also please read WORKINPROGRESS. There is no deadline here. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you aren't working on anything. You are pointing out tiny nit-picky differences that you don't like about the template. Literally no one else is complaining about this besides you. And I will work on whatever I want to thanks. :-) -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * a bit lost in this thread. Without me getting pissy or sounding like a jerk, what are the remaining issues? you and I have fought since we first communicated. Setting my bull-headed-ness aside for a moment, what are the issues remaining in your eyes? Can you provide a clear list here so I can get them addressed? Would like to wrap this up so we can all move on. :-) -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's not much now, thankfully. Just as Hike395 agreed, adding the motto_single/nickname_single, and I would really like a "named_for" parameter, as an option instead of "etymology". That's all. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 03:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is already a named_for in the infobox, give it a try. I just added motto_single and nickname_single. So Ɱ, we're ready to promote your version to the main article. —hike395 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay looks good, except that the 'named for' parameter for some reason displays much lower in a random place; it should be moved to near the nickname, as they both refer to and explain the place name. Also, unlike the Geobox, it links to Namesake, which seems a little unnecessary. People will understand what 'named for' means... ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the last thing, I swear. Thanks for working with me and making fixes, I really appreciate it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely ridiculous. You are holding up the entire process because of a tiny change to a template with 480,000 transclusions. You don't want ONE page to use it because it doesn't fit with the way YOU want the template to be. Get over yourself already. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's no deadline to get the change done, just impatience. There's no call for this aggressive approach when you are very close to getting what you want anyways, and when the process had been more collaborative in nature until this most recent exchange. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So if that's the last thing, why can't the new template be used? Why is there still an edit war? Jonathunder (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Many of Ɱ's suggestions have been improvements to Infobox settlement (there shouldn't have been only "Motto(s)" as a heading, for one), but at this point there's no reason to not convert the article.  The large red Template:Geobox is no longer supported for this type. warning outweighs any minor style issues that remain. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect Zackmann himself added in that large warning; it didn't exist a few days ago; likely he wants to dissuade even more people from using geoboxes this way... Yet you're wrong; we are still working through issues here, and there's WP:NO DEADLINE. There have been several important changes made or brought up already, and we're nearly there. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss improving the article, not editors, particularly one who is no longer participating on this page. If I understand the above discussion correctly, there is only one more change requested to the infobox. Is that correct? If so, what is it, and what is holding that back? Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There was only one thing remaining: the placement and linking of the "named for" parameter. However, with Zackmann's reversion of the motto/nickname functions, we should also work on an acceptable solution for that. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for your help. I'll have to come back to this a bit later, gotta run. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm super busy IRL, so don't have much time for WP. reverted my addition of motto_single and nickname_single due to a request by, see the discussion here. Fixing this properly will require a very large set of semi-automated edits that affects 5000+ articles. Usually no one helps me do grunt work like this: it would take me months of calendar time to fix.
 * I don't know why nickname and named_for are in different parts of the infobox. I don't even know why there is a separate section for the motto, nickname, and etymology that are center-justified (as opposed to the usual infobox format). As you can see from the reversion of motto_single, even minor edits on a template with 480,000+ transclusions are carefully scrutinized. Rearrangement of the fields would need to be brought up for discussion.
 * Can we move discussion of changes to Infobox settlement to Template talk:Infobox settlement? It would help minimize duplicative discussions. —hike395 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the formatting of nickname, motto, etymology being separated and even center-justified; I think others might too, and it matches with everything above it being center-justified. But can you move 'named for' to the etymology spot, and perhaps de-link it? Doubt any complaints would come of that. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're still working on solving "nickname(s)" and "motto(s)" (see the discussion). When we've resolved that, we can bring up moving "named for" into the nickname/motto section. —hike395 (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ɱ's edits
I invite User:Ɱ to explain why "and so part of" is not a typo and to explain what the heck is the "New York–Jersey City–White Plains, NY–NJ Metropolitan Division". They say this is sourced. Which page of the cited source says Briarcliff Manor is part of said geographic mishmash. Thanks. brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This first part is something that the admin added here. They are Australian, so perhaps it might not look like common English to you, but it's not wrong. Prove to me it's improper. As for the Metropolitan Division, I already commented about that. Look at the Google hits, or go look at Wikipedia's article on the New York Metropolitan Area. It breaks it all down very clearly, that the Met Area is the largest metropolitan area in the world, and thus naming the division is important. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget names four divisions; if you have a problem with its nomenclature or mere existence, I suggest you take it up with them.  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 05:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 09:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Location of Catholic schools
I think usually the school portions of the parish are described in detail in the education section and not the religion section. What could be done is have a short summary of the school in the religion section and then more detail in the education section. Its important as some readers may just focus on a particular section (like the education one) and not realize the Catholic school is in the religion section. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try moving it. ɱ  (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Article size
Per WP:TOOBIG, articles over 100kb should almost certainly be devided or split. This article is 190kb. Should this article be split or is the size justifiable? Lallint ⟫⟫⟫  Talk  18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Statistics using Page size tool:
 * HTML document size: 689 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 131 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 325 kB
 * Wiki text: 185 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 67 kB (10703 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 39 kB Lallint  ⟫⟫⟫  Talk  18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It already has been split: History of Briarcliff Manor and Timeline of Briarcliff Manor. US Cities Guideline - History sections can easily become very long with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. While there is no strict rule on how long a section may be, as a general rule of thumb, more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings might indicate that it should be accompanied by a History of _ main article (using the main template). Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of _ article give the details. Fettlemap (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Lallint, WP:TOOBIG assesses readable prose size, not total page size. So at 67kb, the page is fine. And yes, it has about 18 direct sub-articles, as seen at Featured topics/Briarcliff Manor. ɱ  (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)