Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Addition log/March 2010
State touring routes in Warren County, New York (1st supplementary nomination) edit
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/State touring routes in Warren County, New York for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
I would like to propose we expand this topic to add the article Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, and rename the topic to the more general "State highways in Warren County, New York". When the topic was originally promoted, some (myself included) were of the opinion that to have the name "State highways in Warren County, New York", the topic should cover all the state reference routes, as well as the state touring routes. However only one of three reference routes, Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, has an article, so it was agreed to exclude them and just call the topic "State touring routes in Warren County, New York". The reason only one of the three has an article is because the state reference routes involved here are very very short - NY 911E is 0.2 miles, and NY 912Q is 0.66 miles. Consensus was formed at the recent Essex County FT nom that, due to shortness, many of the state reference routes are non-notable to have articles - there, only one of 6 has an article - and so it was concluded that it is okay to exclude those that don't have articles whilst including those that do and keeping the topics under the more general "State highways" name. The Essex topic was promoted under this agreement, and I'd now like to see this topic move in line with that, i.e. have Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway added to it and thus having the topic renamed to the more general name - rst20xx (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Second rationale: ...When I originally brought this supplementary nomination, I forgot that decommissioned route New York State Route 9M also needs adding to this topic. If both Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway and New York State Route 9M are added to this topic, it will drop from an FT to a GT.
However shortly after I brought this nomination, I hid it, following on from this conversation with topic creator Mitchazenia, with the understanding that the nomination be rebrought once one of New York State Route 149, New York State Route 418 or New York State Route 8 reaches FA - this way, the topic would get to stay as FT, even with the addition of these two articles.
However, 7 months have passed and none of the three articles are FA. I really feel the above two articles should be added to this topic, to bring it in line with the other road topics. The topic as it stands is not comprehensive. The exclusion of 9M is wrong even without the topic renamed. The exclusion of the Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway fits under the current name, but I think the focus of the topic is too narrow, with the narrowing to just state touring routes being arbitrary when just one article (a GA!) is excluded as a result.
GTs may not be as good as FTs, but this topic can always get back to FT at any time by getting an FA promoted. In the meantime I think it is more informative for the reader to have these articles in this topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the rationale. Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: For the sake of consistency, I would prefer Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway be piped in as New York State Route 917A. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why does the article have a different name then? This in itself is inconsistent. I think I'd prefer the article name not to be piped, in this case. Maybe discussion/vote? - rst20xx (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well the title of the article seems fine since that is what the road is commonly known by, and that conforms to normal Wikipedia naming convention. However, in the topic box if you have 1 article whose name is formatted differently it will stick out and look strange. And since almost no Wikipedia reader will have ever heard of this road by either name, I think it would be best to pipe in the official name in the topic box for consistency and aesthetics. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree, I think WP:COMMONNAME should apply to the names that articles appear under in topic boxes. We only pipe when part of the name is clear from the context of the rest of the topic box, which almost always just means removing repetition. For example if we have a topic on "Videogame P" then "List of characters in Videogame P" would become "List of characters". Nothing has ever been piped away from its WP:COMMONNAME - rst20xx (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME certainly does not apply to how article titles are formatted in a topic box anymore than it applies to how wikilinks should be formatted in the text of an article. It only deals with what an article is actually named in the main namespace. If you have 1 article out of 12 that is formatted differently than all the rest in a topic box, that will be what an average person notices. There is no need for that type of visual distraction when we can quite easily format everything the same in the box. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see why the distraction is a problem. I guess it would be best to get more people's opinions on this - rst20xx (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes other opinions would probably be helpful. I guess it's entirely possible that it would just bug the hell out of me but nobody else would mind. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see why the distraction is a problem. I guess it would be best to get more people's opinions on this - rst20xx (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME certainly does not apply to how article titles are formatted in a topic box anymore than it applies to how wikilinks should be formatted in the text of an article. It only deals with what an article is actually named in the main namespace. If you have 1 article out of 12 that is formatted differently than all the rest in a topic box, that will be what an average person notices. There is no need for that type of visual distraction when we can quite easily format everything the same in the box. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree, I think WP:COMMONNAME should apply to the names that articles appear under in topic boxes. We only pipe when part of the name is clear from the context of the rest of the topic box, which almost always just means removing repetition. For example if we have a topic on "Videogame P" then "List of characters in Videogame P" would become "List of characters". Nothing has ever been piped away from its WP:COMMONNAME - rst20xx (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well the title of the article seems fine since that is what the road is commonly known by, and that conforms to normal Wikipedia naming convention. However, in the topic box if you have 1 article whose name is formatted differently it will stick out and look strange. And since almost no Wikipedia reader will have ever heard of this road by either name, I think it would be best to pipe in the official name in the topic box for consistency and aesthetics. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why does the article have a different name then? This in itself is inconsistent. I think I'd prefer the article name not to be piped, in this case. Maybe discussion/vote? - rst20xx (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - OK, 917A it is - rst20xx (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)