Talk:Saw Mill River

Why is the river named Saw Mill?
Anyone knows why this river is named Saw Mill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual explanation is it had a large sawmill 300 years ago. Or multiple ones.  Ain't got any citation, however.  Jim.henderson (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ACME maps
Daniel, right now you have fourteen refs for ACME maps that only differ in their URLs (i.e. they look identical on the refs section of this article). You also have 14 different refs to the USGS, several of which also appear as duplicates. Is there any way to do a notes and references format so the USGS and ACME are only listed once as references, with all of the individual URLs in the notes section?

Thanks.-- ɱ    (talk)  19:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, no. This is how Adam and I did it on New York State Route 52, at least—I had added some extra titling, but he got rid of it. Perhaps we could add some descriptive texts after the footnotes? Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We could, but it might not be worth it. Try it if you like.-- ɱ    (talk)  13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is something known as reference groups. Would that be applicable? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I'll have to think on that more...-- ɱ    (talk)  13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC
 * Also, how would either of you feel about me formatting the article to a LDR style? I have an easy tool to do that, it makes the prose more readable on the edit screen, and puts all the refs together in the ref section for easy editing for consistency. A working example of the LDR style is Briarcliff Manor, New York (or for a shorter example, see something like Briarcliff High School).-- ɱ    (talk)  13:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it if it will make editing easier. It does not look much different just reading the article either (except with a notes section which is not such a bad idea).PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to no objections in over a week, I'll implement this.-- ɱ    (talk)  23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It turned out better than I expected. Where does one go to edit footnote text this way? Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all located in the References section of the article.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally with Google Maps references, a title of what the map is showing is inserted into the reference. IMHO, this should be added to each of the ACME Mapper references, adding that to map and shifting the URL to map-url. Also, the access date should be provided for each map, and since these are dynamically generated maps, that date would also be the publication date. (That is how google maps handles it now.)  Imzadi 1979  →   06:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

who buried the Saw Mill River?
According to a lady from the Saw Mill River Coalition and National Geographic here, the army corps of engineers denied burying the river. We probably need to change that in the article. Sadly, now we do not know who buried the river (probably municipal authorities but we have no proof). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious. This (non-primary source) doc by EPA fingers the Corps as well. PRRfan (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that is a Saw Mill River Coalition document written for the EPA (or vice-verse). The SMC thought that the Army Corps buried the river, a head person within the coalition told me that they took the claim that the Corps buried the river off the site after the Corps themselves denied burying the river to her. My guess is that this document can't be edited because it is a PDF that was already distributed, but that is just speculation. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I should let you know that contrary to popular belief, PDFs can be edited. Adobe Acrobat has editing tools for PDF editing, or one can simply convert the PDF into an image, edit it on Photoshop, Gimp, or the like, and save it back into a PDF format.-- ɱ    (talk)  23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We should see if Yonkers has any historical archives of newspapers from that era. Going back to good secondary sources seems like it might clear things up. It did strike me as a strange thing for the Corps to have done at the time ... I mean, yes, inland waterways are part of its responsibility but it's only (I think) been in the later 20th century that it's gotten involved in this sort of project. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Geology Section
Does there need to be a geology section on the river. The river's geology does not seem that important to me. It seems like it is simply a short summary of the geology of Westchester County in general. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's because every good river article seems to have one. You're right that it's rather general. Perhaps we can work it into the hydrology section. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That would probably be for the best. I don't see how a separate geology section is necessary for a small river. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)