Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/Archive 3

Where should the exit list be?

I came across New York State Route 7, which has both a junction table and an exit list. For future reference, if an article has both a junction table and an exit list, should they be in separate sections (==Major intersections== and ==Exit list==) or in the same section, separated by a third-level heading (==Major intersections== and ===Exit list===)? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Being familiar with New York State Route 7 and I-890 in Rotterdam, the duplex is just a minor portion of the overall length of NY 7, and has just one exit between the duplex termini exits. Therefore, I'd suggest that the exits be part of the Major Intersections just as the rest of the highway is right now. I'd leave them as they now are, although since there is an exit (Exit 8 of I-890 for Highbridge Road), that should be added on the Schectady County (Town of Rotterdam) section. There needs to be quite a bit of additions, though, to the section known locally as "Alternate Route 7" (betwen I-87 and I-787) as there's an unnumbered exit for US 9/NY 9R, the exit for I-787 South/NY 787 North, and the duplex with I-787 North across the Hudson River into Troy...that duplex terminates on the Troy side of the bridge, a block west of the intersection with NY 40 (which is there). Fwgoebel 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Showing junctions with concurrencies

Lately, I've found myself using a method already in use at WP:PASH and WP:OHSH by showing junctions with concurrencies as a "side-by-side" entry rather than by a "stacked" entry. See New York State Route 9D, especially the US 6/US 202 and I-84/NY 52 junctions in the table, for an example of this. Though I think we can use either method to show junctions with concurrencies, I'd prefer the side-by-side entry. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup complete! and other news

Hey everyone. A piece of good news - all of the NYS articles (at least, the ones in Category:New York state highways) have been cleaned up and upgraded to the current project standards! My thanks to everyone who helped in the cleanup efforts, and with that said, we can, once again, focus on creating new articles now that all of the ones we have are good to go. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we've begun a "Featured article" subproject, if you will, here at WP:NYSR. If you haven't seen it, check out the top of the project page, where you can see the current featured article and nominate an article to be a featured article in the future. Regards, --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also of note: {{Routeboxny}} and {{Nysr box}}, now both unused, have been put up for deletion at WP:TFD. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Several new additions, including a couple of Decommissioned Routes

I've recently joined, having made a couple of small corrections to some of the existing route pages. Among them were changing termini (North should be West, for example) and adding an interstate overpass where it didn't exist. My best recollection is that I've made minor changes to at least 30 and 29A. On 29, I added quite a bit of description on a good segment, how its original routing is very visible along the current road. Perhaps I could get some pictures next year when there's some foliage. My school bus traveled that route K-12, so that's why I'm so familiar with it.

In addition, I've added the following pages within the past week, having driven the entire lengths of them: 30A, 66, 103, 146A, 136, 203, 150. I invite comment on them. I still hope to get to 145 and a number of those in the 159-170 range, and 10A.

The following decommissioned routes were also added: 154, 339. In addition, I added the decommissioned highways to the intersection lists where appropriate, but because I could not determine the mileage right away, I used the notation of "?.?" for mileage. Those occur on NY 50 (for 339 WT), NY 22 (for 154 ET) and 29 (for 29A WT). 29A used to have a different routing and it's described on 29A, mentioned accurately on 30A, but added without mileage on 29. Meanwhile, I will soon research decommissioned 152. I'm wondering if it's acceptable to use the same New York shield on the decommissioned highways, or instead a grayed-out or brown image?Forget that...on other pages for decommissioned highways, particularly US 66, the "standard" shield is used. Let's keep it consistent.

Finally, I also have information on NY 546. It's not listed, it's not signed anywhere, but the number is reserved for Balltown Road, Schectady. Probably named because it connects 5 and 146. It's 2.0 miles long. Reference markers for 546 appear between 5 and 7, and 146 for the short segment between 7 and where 146 arrives on Union Street. That suggests that NY 7 may have once duplexed 146 throughout Schenectady (city), so that last segment might better be described as a decommissioned segment of NY 146, and listed as such on the pages for 7, 146, and 546 if that's put into existence. Oddly, that's where my doctor's office is located. There's no NY 546 .svg placard. For what it's worth, 546 is mentioned in Official Description of Highway Touring Routes, Scenic Byways & Bicycle Routes in New York State (PDF). Fwgoebel 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, welcome to the project! =) Any and all contributions are definitely welcome. Some notes:

• If a decommissioned route has been completely reassigned as another road (such as New York State Route 432), the article and its name should reflect its current, not former designation (as the NY 432 link redirects to County Route 119 (Steuben County, New York), which is what NY 432 is today). If the route is now multiple roads (such as two county routes), then an article can be made for the decommissioned route as a whole.
• In situations where the mileage is unknown, the mile= parameter can be omitted.
• An argument for using the same shield style for all routes, active or not: if a decommissioned route is reassigned in the future and we used "grayed-out" shields for decommissioned routes, we would then have to make a new "standard" shield to replace the decomd. one. By keeping the style consistent, it eliminates this need.
• After doing a Google test, it appears that NY 546 does/did/will exist in some fashion. According to Empire State Roads, Balltown Road is Reference Route 914T, but, as you said, is signed with NY 146 and NY 546 reference markers. I'd say that until Balltown Road officially becomes NY 546 (as the PDF indicates reserved for the time being), any article created for it should be at New York State Route 914T, its current number. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback. Given that: My NY 339 (decommissioned) would be eliminated, but I don't think there's a Saratoga County Route 339 page yet in existence, so...leave it as it (for the time being?) with commentary? I don't (yet) know how to set up a redirect (eventually, I'm sure I will). The NY 154 that I did - that will indeed stay up as it is as is has been incorporated into at least two city streets, two county highways, and one state highway. For now though, what shall be done with the NY 339 that I put up? Fwgoebel 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's easy! Up at the top of the New York State Route 339 article, between the "history" and "unwatch" tabs, is a tab that says "move". Click the move tab, type County Route 339 (Saratoga County, New York) as the new article name, and type an appropriate reason for the move. You're all set; the redirect will be made automatically for you. However, then you do have to go through and make sure there are no double redirects; any redirects to New York State Route 339 should be changed to redirect instead to County Route 339 (Saratoga County, New York). Powers ^T 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Noaccess tag used for two routes entering a municipality

In a couple of instances—articles on state routes that I've added—I've come across two highways that enter a town, but do not intersect (they come close). These differ from overpasses (usually between minor state highways and an interstate) in that there's no overpass, but the roads are close enough to have "To" signs in town for both. Among these are US 9W and NY 203 in Valatie (0.5 mile); NY 146 and NY 156 in Altamont (0.1 mile); and NY 443 and NY 157A at Warren Lake, East Berne (1.3 miles). For each, I've used the "noaccess" tag, and where I was able to determine, if a reference route between the two if it's used (together with the length of that access route). I don't think the "noaccess" tag should be used willy-nilly, but judiciously. In each instance, even without a direct intersection, the routes enter the same municipality and both have a sign "To" the other route. Fwgoebel 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To expand on this: I've put up NY 103 and expanded on it and while it serves solely as a link between NY 5 and NY 5S, I have not indicated a "noaccess" tag for either of the two. NY 103 is shorter than many reference routes, but because it's a touring route and not a reference route, and crosses a river, plus the hamlet is only at one end, it doesn't qualify per what I've outlined above as a "noaccess" junction. This is the judicious non-use that I'm employing here. Fwgoebel 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I really think using the noaccess shading for non-junctions is a bad idea. The idea for the shading was derived from Template:Routebox legend, which explicitly states crossing with no access. Since all of the examples above involve roads that do not cross, I strongly feel that using the noaccess shading for these situations is inappropriate. It also gives me, as a reader, the impression that the two roads cross, regardless of what's written in the notes column. Instead, I'd rather do something like the pseudo-NY 89/96 junction with New York State Route 79 in Ithaca. So, for this example on New York State Route 146:

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Albany	Altamont	11.7	18.8	NY 156	Access to NY 156 via Reference Route 912C, about one block (0.1 mile).
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

I would rather do this:

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Albany	Altamont	11.7	18.8	NY 156	Access to NY 156 via NY 912C.
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

or

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
Albany	Altamont	11.7	18.8	NY 156	Access to NY 156 via Reference Route 912C.
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

--TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such a detailed and educating response. I hadn't had to use banners over signs until this point and your response, together with an excellent demonstration, set me straight. I agree, now that I see this technique, that it is the way to go. Check out NY 146 now, I've made this change on that page, I'll do the others when I get a chance. I also used the "nospace .svg" to clean up the centering of a couple other banners and their respective shields. I learned more than you intended there, so that's definitely a feather in your cap. Fwgoebel 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles nominated for project FA

Two articles have been nominated for project featured article status. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/FA/Recommend to view the articles and vote. If both are approved, the top vote-getter will be the featured article for December. Regards, --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

December update: NY 52 was selected as the December NYSR featured article. NY 55 remains up for nomination as the January article, but more noms are desperately needed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two more noms added, making a total of three routes to choose from for next month. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Issue with template:NYint

I need to disambiguate the link to Unionville, New York on New York State Route 284, but I don't think the template supports this. --NE2 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It does have that function using the ctdab= parameter. I have added it to the junction list of NY 284. --Polaron | Talk 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NYint template to be used exclusively?

I recently re-worked all of the articles I created to the NYint template. That took less time than I thought. Still, there are many other articles that follow the NYSRInt template (as of now: NY 5A NY 5B NY 5S, among others. Shall it be a "to-do" task to move them all over to the NYint format, as it appears to be the format called for in the project article? Fwgoebel 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's as high-priority as other tasks, but the very presence of the older template is what caused me to do my first article (30A) in that format, simply by copy/paste/adapt/edit. It was a "learn as you go" process. If the older template isn't used anywhere, then it's unlikely that it'll be copied and used on another new article (and perhaps the template could be submitted for deletion). But, I have some time, so I think I can go into it. Looks like, for now, 5S will take the longest.Fwgoebel 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As of 12:00:00 EST, I've made these changes as high as NY 36. NY 35 was the highest I've done. NY 37 needs to be done, and I will check on that later. But for now, I'm taking a much-needed break, to do some driving, in addition to getting info on a couple other un-done route articles. Fwgoebel 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've checked all the articles up to 36 (as directed on the talk pages) and they look good to go. One thing though - when you update the template, please change the footer template from {{NYSRIntBottom}} to {{NYintbtm}} as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I left that footer alone as I though I'd seen (at least one) of the NYint -based blocks have that NYSRInt footer, yet work fine, so I dismissed it as nonessential. (Perhaps, the footer isn't as critical, as it just ends what's above it?) From this point forward, I'll make that change.Fwgoebel 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to the left: I'm now up to NY 64. I am finding many that are already on NYint, so it's not overwhelming.Fwgoebel 05:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Continuing: Now up to NY 111. The highest number that needed re-working was 104B.Fwgoebel 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) And, now up to NY 140. I do know that 141 needs a change as a lot of many "short" one-county routes are done without any county designations on the chart. As of now: NY 250 and below (though I have noted a few articles without a description box at all).Fwgoebel 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) As of now; Through NY 400. Fwgoebel 16:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here we go. I think I've got them all done, the last one needing the change was NY 990V. If it can be verified that the NYSRInt format is no longer found on any of the NY State Route articles, then the To-Do list item can be removed (I cannot find a way to remove it, or to do a "strikeout" on it. But as of now, it appears to be complete.Fwgoebel 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To verify that all of the usages of NYSRInt have been replaced, what you can do is to go to Template:NYSRInt, then, on the left side of the screen in the toolbox, click "What links here". As you can tell by carrying out this procedure, all usages have been replaced, which means it can be sent to WP:TFD, a process that I can take care of. Also, as for editing the to-do list, there is a series of links above the to-do template on the project page - one of which (the leftmost one, I think) is edit. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just couldn't find (and still can't find) the applicable "edit" for that template, just the edit for the various text blocks above and below it. It's no big deal, just that it would have been nice if I could have actually done it myself, and I won't really be in a position to do the others, I don't think. But as otherwise, thank you for taking care of it. And, I have to remember to sign this: I felt really sick yesterday and I did leave a few talk posts without four tildes. Fwgoebel 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, I went to your user page (User:TwinsMetsFan) and saw your To-Do list, and the four links there. On my browser, the title of the To-do either spaces them out, or they're hidden under the right-side matter. I'm not using a wide-format screen. The fact that I'm on a Mac shouldn't be a factor, I thought it might be. Fwgoebel 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I found the "Edit" (and Refresh, etc.) On my screen, they wound up "floating" near Kentucky on the right. Fwgoebel 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to bring your attention to...

Croton Expressway, a stub article on an expressway in Westchester County that's part of US 9, in desperate need of wikification and general cleanup. It would be great if someone could take that up in the near future. If not, that's fine. I plan to create a U.S. Route 9 in New York article in the near future (sometime before year's end), and will be happy to merge the salvageable information into it at that time. -- NORTH ^talk 07:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to move the Croton Expressway article to the US 9 in NY page and use that as a basis for writing the article. I had to do that for Lehigh Valley Thruway in Pennsylvania, which became the basis for U.S. Route 22 in Pennsylvania. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New parameters for reference routes

A quick technical update regarding {{Infobox NY Reference Route}}: the "route=" and "alternate_name=" parameters were added tonight, allowing for routeboxes like the one on New York State Route 940U. One drawback, however: the "name=", "shield=", and "reference_route=" parameters cannot be used with route= and alternate_name= for technical reasons. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To do: Aligning Thruway entries

I won't take up a lot of space on this talk page with progress, but I've started doing a little standardizing, particularly the Thruway. I believe we have, albeit possibly unwritten? a policy of having the appropriate interstate logo (87, 90, 190) on the same line as the Thruway sign. Many articles have them on separate lines, and I'm going through and putting them on the same line. To see progress on this, see my user page (scroll down to "What's next"). I'm doing the same for I-86/NY 17. Of note: NY 9J passes under the Thruway but not I-90, so I deleted that I-90 logo. Fwgoebel 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Complete. Fwgoebel 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that it's complete, does every entry of I-190 call for a Thruway logo? Is every inch of I-190 under the Thruway? Some articles don't mention Thruway with I-190.Fwgoebel 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I-190 is part of the Thruway from I-90 north to NY 384, where it becomes just I-190. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. For that, I'll leave every article as it is, trusting the editors there. Fwgoebel 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for NYint template

I'm wondering if two new "types" can be created, added to the five choices already in existence. They are: Grade separated interchange (|type=grade) and Roundabout/Rotary/Circle (|type=circle). I imagine they'd create more "to-do" work to place them on articles where they'd be appropriate, but as it is, they're commonly mentioned in the Notes column. Fwgoebel 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't know if we should add extra types based on the type of junction. Granted, we do have "noaccess", but this is to indicate that no junction exists. Plus, the notes column was initially created so that special notes about the junction in question (such as whether the junction is an interchange, traffic circle, etc.) could be added. Input from others on this issue is welcome. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_road

I’m coming across another thing that isn’t consistent from article to article. Whenever I put up a new one, invariably I’m starting by copying the wiki code from one as similar as I can find, doing the natural “learn by doing”. The copy, though, is a time-saver. This is how I replicated the old “NYSRInt” template on some articles, perpetuating it for a bit. Now, I’m coming across another: Some articles have a “length_km” (a manual entry of the length in kilometers) and others, a “length_round” followed by a “length_ref” (and the kilometer length is calculated automatically). The final appearance of the article doesn’t seem to be different.

I didn’t notice it right away, but some of the newer articles I created were cleaned up by TMF and had that change made (among others), but many are still there. For example, I just started doing NY 196, and with NY 197 being nearby enough (in numeral, location, and depth of article), made sense to copy from that. NY 197 uses the “length_km” line. Within this very talk page, even NY 27 uses it (although NY 135 does not), so I’ll adapt for now and do it with “length_ref”. But given that the remaining routes that need articles are starting to get way too far for me to go out and drive (my preferred method), perhaps doing this sort of cleanup might be a to-do list for me.

PS: After looking at the template proper, I noticed that one could enter “length_km” and have the miles calculated, and listed second. Functionally, any of these methods work. Fwgoebel 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"length_km" is a deprecated parameter that was used until SPUI incorporated the automatic calculation of kilometers into infobox road. Ideally, all articles should use "length_round" and "length_ref". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if only because I trust a computer calculation more. (After implementing "length_round" instead of "length_km" on Interstate 195 (New Jersey), I realized that the manual entry of "length_km" was incorrect by about 0.3.) -- NORTH ^talk 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Route articles

I put up three yesterday: NY 920D, NY 920J, NY 910F. Comment invited on all three, as well as the touring routes in Fulton County that the first two intersect: NY 29 and NY 30A. NY 910F has a manually placed noaccess “tag”, so a manually placed legend is there too (it's an exit listing, not an intersection list). More are to come, but I just wonder what might be done differently, and if/how they should appear when they intersect touring routes - displaying the reference route's marker, and/or the decomissioned touring route shield, as appropriate. Fwgoebel 13:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• And, here's my first question: Today I put up an article for a route that's not numbered: 913T. I created a reference marker that would go on that route, if posted. Otherwise, markers are placed that bear what's actually posted (as 29A on 920J. Shall that be the protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fwgoebel (talk • contribs) 23:03, December 28, 2006 (EST).
  • Sounds good to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Here's some more stuff: Reference routes aren't always going to have termini at cross routes, but possibly a city line. See 910C and 910E: Infobox, I used "City Line, Albany" as the appropriate terminus, and in the junction list "Albany City Line" as the route entry. If a cross street or waterway exists at the city line, I placed that in the street entry. For 913T, I used "Ramps to I-787" for the terminus in the infobox. My intention is to continue doing these with consistent entry, so if this is acceptable, fine; if not, please let me know. Fwgoebel 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I STILL hate the new Intersection Template

Upon adding two formerly proposed roads to the new intersection template for New York State Route 25, I ended up making the last two intersections lobsided, again! I NEVER had this problem with the old intersection template. Why the hell does it always cause me to have these problems?! DanTD 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to adjust the cspan and lspan values accordingly for the new rows. I've fixed them both. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Since I already added one of the links to the shields, could you make one for Suffolk County Roads 8, 65, 88, and 94A? SCR 65 is going to be for my future article on Suffolk County Road 19, and the others are for the ones I already added to routeboxes and intersection boxes. DanTD 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Browse function on Reference Routes

Check out 915E, I added a browse function to the template Template:Infobox NY Reference Route. Displays fine on articles that need them (since this reference route covers a decommissioned route (381), I redirected that, and added the browse function. However, it adds {{{browse}}} junk to other reference routes. If you have a fix, please do what you can. Fwgoebel 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I managed to fix it on my own: It needed a pipe ( ). Looked into the county route template to find that. All is fine. Fwgoebel 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit list guide

Just wanted to run this by everyone here at WP:NYSR. Changes are being proposed to the exit list guide that will change the way exit lists appear, albeit slightly, on articles covered by this project. Check the proposed changes out at the link above. If anyone has any concerns, please post them there. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up after ourselves

Remember back in the springtime when we were all busy creating and uploading .PNG state route signs because the routeboxny template was designed to automatically install them?

Well, we've replaced all of them in articles with .SVGs per the standard infobox format. But the PNGs are almost all still here. Most are orphaned but you still find some used in the odd article like "List of highways numbered ..." and some lists of river crossings.

I've been going through the ones I uploaded and requesting speedy deletion (with {{db-g7}}). Could everyone else do the same? Yes, they will eventually be deleted as orphans but that's no reason we can't pick up after ourselves and free up space on the server. I've come across quite a few of other people's .PNGs; only the uploader can request speedying and I don't really want to clog up IFD. A little help here?

Also, check each one for pages they're used in and change to the .SVG version if you can. I've done these where I've come across them but I haven't hit every one yet. Daniel Case 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As of 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I have finished with all mine, which was the bulk of the remaining .PNGs. However, there are a scattered few others left. If you uploaded any, go look, they're still there. Daniel Case 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Palisades' sign removed from intersecting routes' articles

While the article for the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) maintains its sheild it has been summarily removed from most if not all of the route articles that intersect it. So has the Mass Pike's and Garden State Parkway's shields from the Thruway article. "Fair use abuse" was cited, "The material must contribute significantly to the article and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." If this is the case, then I suppose the Thruway sign should be taken off every article that references that. Before I revert anything, I invite comment here. I'm trying not to show emotion at this point. Fwgoebel 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Thruway sign was taken off every article along with the above shields. Personally, I think the reason given for removing the shields is extremely weak and, like yourself, am trying to refrain from becoming emotional. Needless to say, however, I'm not pleased by what transpired. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Thruway sign should also be removed; if you would like to help, feel free. --NE2 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The signs are not decorations; they are the actual routes that are being crossed at the mileage point noted in the particular articles as cited. And they do contribute significantly, as they illustrate the actual signage present on the routes that are crossed along its path. We would not be inserting them if this was not the case, and there is always a link to the article about that very route, and if there's an external link associated with it (such as the Thruway), it's accessible through that. Fwgoebel 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see the shield used on the road, you can click the link; note that I did not remove the shields from the articles actually about the roads. The use for decoration on intersecting roads does not follow Wikipedia's fair use policy and may not follow U.S. law. --NE2 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not decoration - it is identification. The presence of the shield can help one who is unfamiliar with the route identify the road better than a text-alone link. IMHO, the shields have just as much a right to be on junction lists than they do on their actual articles. Under your arguments above, all uses of the shields would be removed, including on the main pages, and the shields would be deleted as orphaned logos. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. They shouldn't be deleted. The next thing we know, they are going to try to remove Green & White New York Parkway shields too. They'd better not! DanTD 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, we follow, or at least try to follow, specific protocols on things including placement and size. For example, I spent several days a few weeks ago moving the Thruway logo to be on the same line as the interstate highway with which it is duplexed. These logos are to be 20 pixels in width (25 pixels for a shield that's rectangular to maintain the same final height, also 20 pixels). And again, they are not placed willy-nilly. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think it would be better served to have posted a comment in this talk page stating your opposition to the presence of these shields, rather than go into so many articles and just delete them. We then could work together to determine what the proper interpretation of policy is (or should be) and possibly modify it in specific instances if necessary. Fwgoebel 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to give my interpretation of fair use policy because to be honest, I don't have one. My question is on specifically the Palisades Parkway shield. All the state/US/Interstate shields are SVG images listed as public domain. Most toll highway shields are PNGs listed as copyrighted and fair use.

When TwinsMetsFan first uploaded the Palisades shield as an SVG, he listed it as public domain. Before he started taking the images off, NE2 switched it to copyrighted. So... my question is: what makes toll highway shields different from the numbered highway shields? And to TMF specifically, what IYHO makes the Palisades shield different from (ex.) the Thruway shield? -- NORTH ^talk 02:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked for such a change on the PIP logo, but now that you looked at it, I found this in the edit summary: "I'm pretty sure this is copyrightable by the PIP authority." Now, there is already a lengthy (somewhat heated) discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Removal_of_decorative_fair_use, started by NE2 after the discussion here began. I don't want to get into a discussion here on the issue of "copyrighted" and "copyrightable" since it really belongs there. I'm still assuming good faith, but I can't help but question the autonomous actions and the manner in which they were taken. Now, while I can't speak on the the PIP and its shield, the NYS Thruway sign is freely downloadable from their official website without any listed restrictions on use. The font in the downloadable file differs from what's actually found on road signs, but matches what's uploaded at The Commons. Fwgoebel 04:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it was pointed out to me in the Wikipedia talk:Fair use discussion that the Thruway authority does have a requirement about written permission, yesterday I mailed a letter to their legal department asking for their interpretation and permission. In that letter I included links to the Thruway article here, as well as an example route article (I used 30A). I asked for their analysis, if they were "decorations". It had been mentioned that if one wanted to see a shield for a route, to click on the route link. I would counter that by mentioning that without presence of the small image, one wouldn't even know there was a shield associated with that intersecting route. My argument is that the artistry (for lack of a better word) of that shield (call it a logo or icon if you wish, I don't care) would be a greater impetus for a reader to venture into the parkway's article than just a text link (especially if the link is abbreviated "PIP"). I will share the response of said letter from the Thruway authority if/when I receive it, although I don't know how I could convey its ruling to the powers-that-be here. Further, I tried to find a website for the PIP (www.pipc.org is for the commission of the park, not necessarily the parkway [route]) and may be a dead link besides. So I don't know if there can be similar permission granted through that means, but that doesn't mean it's out of the question altogether. Fwgoebel 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Precision in junction lists

Now that we've finally found a stable format for articles, I'd like to draw attention to an issue that's been gnawing at me for some time - precision in our junction lists. When I first proposed the idea to round to the nearest tenth, I did so because at that time, I was using trip planning software (which only went to the nearest tenth) to measure the distance. Now that I know of the NYSDOT traffic counts (which provide mileposts to the nearest hundredth), there is no longer a need to manually calculate the distance, plus I can now (as well as anyone using the counts can) calculate the distance to the nearest hundredth.

My point is that I believe we should "up" the precision in our junction lists from the nearest tenth to the nearest hundredth as soon as possible. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed for the sake of common sense.  :-) If you have a reliable source that gives mileage to two decimal places, then you should give mileage to two decimal places. -- NORTH ^talk 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've used the "ruler" function in Google Earth to check for a distance when I've overlooked an intersection when driving a route, or to do the reference routes that I've put up. The ruler function does have a "path" function and uses hundredth of a mile (but does not compensate for elevation changes, as far as I know). Still, I've rounded to the nearest tenth every time, and used the mileage posted on whatever reference, for the final terminus.Fwgoebel 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure suggestion - Related routes

Having noted in the US Interstate and Interstate article structures both include sections for related routes (such as US 9 having US 209, and I-87 having I-287, I-587, and I-787 on them), I'm wondering it it would be good to have such a notation on those NY state routes that have suffixed routes. Such a listing would have the suffixed route number and whether the route is a loop, spur, or primarily parallel (such as NY 5S). I have added an example to NY 30, illustrating the suffixed route's termini, and a short list of munipalities it passes through (which are not accessed by the parent route) and, in this case, how the route is west of the parent. Suffix route spurs would note the general direction away from the parent it follows. A decommissioned route (like 12C) could be listed in the past tense. In all, the notation would be brief (but wikilinked). Thoughts? Fwgoebel 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, but it'd probably be better if it was formatted similar to the "Spur routes" section on Pennsylvania Route 58. We tried a single, second-level section for Spur/related routes in the early days of WP:PASH, but eventually settled on a third-level section that was part of the see also section. Another example that may be more relevant in this case is the "Suffixed routes" section on New York State Route 17. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those sound good also, I suppose the exact way of doing it would depend on the routes. They'd all be suffixed, so that term can be used as well. Regardless of format, the goal should be one line per suffixed route. Fwgoebel 06:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

1930 renumbering

I'm planning on expanding the 1930 renumbering article over the next few days. I just wanted to see what kind of information other people think would be useful to put in this article. Any suggestions on content and/or presentation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check the Virginia renumbering articles for what I chose to include. Of course if you have anything from that period that explains why it was done, it would be a good thing to include. --NE2 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia articles seem like they'd be a good springboard in terms of style of presentation. Another thing I'd include as well as tables showing the new routes in 1930 would also be one going the other way - detailing routes as they existed before 1930 and showing what route(s) they became. The table that SPUI began a while ago on top of the 1930 renumbering talk page may be a good format for the new route table(s). For the old route table(s), well, that design may work as well, just flipping the new and old columns.

Off-beat comment (well, maybe not): on the bottom of the talk, I noticed there's now a section detailing the clusters of route numbering that appeared around the state post-1930. Two questions: (1) Were NY 250-253 commissioned in the Rochester area simultaneously in 1930 and (2) if so, would that be considered a cluster? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Green Book route log doesn't go beyond 150 for some reason so I have to rely on the map in the New York Times article for higher numbered routes. However, not all routes are indicated on the map, especially around cities. I will try to get a hold of a 1931 map next week. But to answer your question, the NYT map shows routes 251 and 253 as newly designated routes. The NYT map does not always show the complete route. 253 is shown only as Caledonia-West Henrietta but my guess is (based on a 1927 map which shows the road but unnumbered) it extended east to old 15 (current 64) near Pittsford as it does now. The Caledonia-Scottsville segment is now current 383. 251 is shown only as Mendon-Scottsville but from the route continuity of the unnumbered road, I would guess it continues north past Chili via current 386 to 33. While I can't be certain until I get a hold of a better map, I am pretty sure that this is indeed one of the clusters that were created in 1930. I would even suggest the entire range 250-262 is the Rochester metro area cluster. --Polaron | Talk 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that in 1927 (and also in some other years) when U.S. Routes were commissioned, renumbering to avoid duplication was also done (i.e. NY 4, NY 6, NY 9, NY 11, NY 20 were decommissioned in 1927; NY 1 became US 1). --Polaron | Talk 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that so many new routes in these clusters were assigned, do you know when the mileage was added? Did a bunch of it get added right in 1930, or was it a gradual process in the 1930s, and many of these were planned routes? --NE2 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says that most of these newly designated roads were pre-existing state maintained roads but were simply unmarked at the time. --Polaron | Talk 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Route 747!

Today's Times-Herald Record has a huge center article on the process of upgrading Drury Lane in the towns of Newburgh and New Windsor to provide better access to Stewart Airport via the under-construction Exit 5A on I-84.

I drive this road to work regularly at the moment, and I thought to myself, given what they're doing here I wouldn't be surprised if they made it a state highway. According to this little sidebar, they are ... Orange County Route 54 is going to become New York State Route 747.

Drury Lane is going from County Route 54 to State Route 747 and getting the kind of facelift that befits a state highway that connects an interstate and an airport in the process.

When construction is completed this year, the narrow, winding local road — a not-so-secret shortcut for thousands of people seeking to avoid the traffic at Route 17K and Union Avenue — will be transformed into a wide, fairly straight one with red lights and shoulders..

747? For an airport access road? Cute.

I am not sure from the article whether 747 will follow the current Drury Lane to 207 or go along the airport access road from its junction with Drury. The latter routing makes more sense to me. But it looks like the junction list will be fairly simple: 207 as ST, I-84 with a three-quarters diamond interchange (no access from Drury/747 south to 84 west due to wetlands) and the Catskill Aqueduct bridged to protect it.

I will take pictures of the construction to augment what I've already got in the Route 17K article. Could a shield be created (I'll create the article)? Daniel Case 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

747 for a road going to an airport...clever work by the DOT. The shield is ready to go. (Image:NY-747.svg) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the actual shields used on the route are at least close to that, not the odd-looking variants that have sprung up all over the place. Fwgoebel 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Section shuffle

Similar to my proposal at WT:IH, I believe that the exit list/major intersection sections should be moved below all prose in the article structure. I have implemented this idea on New York State Route 104, and I believe that it makes the article appear more robust. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the time since this comment, I've experimented with a bit of different formatting on New York State Route 104 and New York State Route 531. Most notably, the communities were moved into a separate infobox in the route description (similar to those specified by WP:IH and WP:USH) and a new section, "Future", was created. If no one has any objections, I'll make the changes on the project page to mirror these two articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of "multiplex"

Who is this Krimpet person replacing all the uses of "multiplex" and derived words like "triplex" and "duplex" in so many articles on the grounds that it's a "neologism"? Is this something that consensus was reached for at the top level of the U.S. Roads project? I sure don't see any discussion of this here, and I don't think the MoS says anything about removing neologisms from articles just for that reason. Daniel Case 19:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur given that the term "duplex" and "multiplex" is already used in highway websites, including New York Routes (even the term "quadruplex" is there). Playing devil's advocate though, the term "duplex" may be the first notion one conceives when reading/hearing the word, and the word "concurrency" appears on the legend for major intersections. I will note though that at the dab page for duplex, there is already an entry for concurrency (road). On that ground I do not consider the term "Duplex" to be a neologism. For what it's worth, the term "OLAP" (overlap) is used by NYSDOT in records. There should be a consensus first before such a broad scale modification is used, especially for so many articles in a project, and if one exists, it should be cited in each edit. I wonder if this is a back-handed way of getting around how, at one point, all of the highway articles in the nation were threatened for AFD. Fwgoebel 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being addressed at WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Junction tables should use "overlap" instead of "concurrency", if nothing else than for space constraints. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern State Parkway

Ive been doing some work on an experimental page for the NSP at User:Jgcarter/Northern State Parkway (JGCarter Test). I will be posting comments in the talk section. Please watch this page as I will be seeking comments. Nothing groundbreaking on the page so far, though.

Verification for routes 18C and 18E

I couldn't find confirmation of these in the maps I have. Based on the north-south progression of suffixed routes, 18C should be in Tonawanda and 18E in Lewiston. My guess (and this is only a guess) is that 18C was the portion of 425 between NY 324 and US 62. 425 originally ended at then NY 18 (US 62) in Martinsville and was later extended. Also this thread in misc.transport.road notes that NY 18E used the old Lewiston-Queenston bridge (the one that existed in 1899-1965). If anybody has information on these, we can then have articles for the entire Route 18 family. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Visual disambiguations of locations

I’ve noticed that at some level, a template has changed so that instead of just displaying the name of a municipality with there's an “|area=” notation, that “area” field is prepended, together with ”of”, to the name. It's a nice touch, but I've discovered that if one uses Census Designated Place (CDP) for “area”, the display is “CDP of <location>”. The “|location_special=” item is a workaround, I used it tonight on NY 351. The entry reads “|location_special=[[Poestenkill (CDP), New York|Hamlet of Poestenkill]]”. I don't think it's necessary to change the template to always display ”Hamlet of” when CDP is used for area, as that’s not necessarily always true. Fwgoebel 04:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit it's getting tiresome. I'm in the process of updating the route articles I created to the new Route Description/Communities format and from time to time note that when the |area= tab is used fro CDP, the display is "CDP of Podunk". If interested: Check out what I did with NY 144 and New York State Route 143. They display the Hamlet of Coeymans the same, but use a different method. In 144, I used the above |location_special tag (and deleting the |area= tag). In 143, I instead created a redirect Coeymans (hamlet), New York (to the CDP article) and in 143, used |area=hamlet. Either way is a multi-step process. I don't think either is really faster - with my keyboarding being pretty good, and my non-use of bots or other automation, I don't see a different. Still, I invite comments. The only other thing that might be done would be to er-work the template to display "Hamlet" when "CDP" is used (if that can be done), although again I don't know if every CDP is indeed a hamlet. Fwgoebel 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!

A letter from Public Affairs, NYS Thruway Authority

In late December 2006, I wrote the NYSTA for written permission for use of the trailblazer “in an encyclopedic article, both in an article about the Thruway proper as well as for routes that cross, intersect, or terminate at the Thruway.” I also asked for input on whether the trailblazer's presence on the articles of intersecting routes (and others) were appropriate, or decoration.Early March, 2007, their response:

Due to the interactive nature of Wikipedia, the Authority cannot monitor compliance with the terms of any license or the accuracy of the use of the trailblazer in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the Authority cannot grant written permission for use of the trailblazer in any on-line Wikipedia article. The Authority takes no position on fair use for the purpose you have proposed. The letter continued by noting a few factual innacuracies, which I have corrected per their enclosures.

Given that, it appears that any final determination regarding the use of the trailblazer falls back into the Fair Use guidelines here. For what it's worth, I have checked "What links here" and found it to be only route or bridge articles, or three user pages where it was either a notation of what one had uploaded/modified, or experimental pages (sandboxes), certainly all uses within which we would generally support. Fwgoebel 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't use it on a with-permission basis anyway — that's been policy now for almost two years — since it wouldn't be freely redistributable. The Authority would have to formally change the licensing or release it, and they're not doing that (nor would I expect them to).

I think we should create a free-use alternative, perhaps using the same colors, an block of the state and the letters "NYST". I think we should do this not just for the Thruway but for any road where we're not allowed to use the logo outside of the article itself (PIP, LOSP). I might even create some of these myself. Daniel Case 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The LOSP shield isn't licensed under fair use, as it's the shield for a NY state parkway. =) I see your point though, and I agree with it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... what's the encyclopedic purpose of a fictional alternate shield? -- NORTH ^talk 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with NORTH on this one. I think we should make an alternative shield. Jgcarter 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I was saying we shouldn't. An alternative shield has no purpose in an encyclopedia. -- NORTH ^talk 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oopsie, confused you with Daniel. I changed my post now. Jgcarter 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. But still, why? -- NORTH ^talk 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic here - and that's part of what may have led to the confusion in the past few posts. Though, to weigh in on the subject: I would be opposed to creating any fictional image as that would be unencyclopedic. Better IMO to spell out what has been abbreviated (the full text Palisades Interstate Parkway, for example) in lieu of "PIP" or a small shield, Still, I don't buy any argument that the presence of a smaller-than-thumbnail image of a route's trailblazer is there solely for decoration (which was the argument for the removal of PIP and had been charged to be the case for the Thruway). TMF and I both strongly argued the cause of them being what they are--identification. I interpret “The (Thruway) Authority takes no position” as being up to both the Fair Use guidelines together with consensus as to the interpretation thereof. Fwgoebel 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My inspiration was all those mock-logos that have put into userboxes (for Windows, Photoshop etc.) since fair-use images such as the original logos were no longer permitted in user space.

I can see not permitting them where, say, the Thruway has either 87 or 90 as a designation, but with, say, the Palisades, we don't have that issue. Maybe we should make shields with the reference route number? Daniel Case 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Or how about just a white-on-blue rectangle with "THRU" for the Thruway and a white-on-brown "PIP" or "PAL" for the Palisades? Daniel Case 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But thats non encyclopedic. I say we make replicas like we have done before. Jgcarter 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean copyright infringement? No thanks. -- NORTH ^talk 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, I dont see the harm in it. We are already doing the same for others like the GCP...Besides, like another commenter said, you can alter one slight thing so its not exactly the same. Jgcarter 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, shields of state/US/Interstate highways - including state-maintained parkways like the Grand Central Parkway - are assumed to not be copyrighted since they're government works. Shields of privately maintained roadways like the Thruway and the Palisades are copyrighted, and a derivative work of a copyrighted work is still copyrighted.

There might not be a harm in it, but it's still Wikipedia policy and/or the law. -- NORTH ^talk 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that only applied to federal government product, though (i.e., the Interstate and U.S. highway shields, and the default circle). What's the grounds for state highway shields being public domain? (just thought I'd ask, not that they aren't or we wouldn't be using them). Daniel Case 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A scary thought, one that I've secretly been wondering myself. -- NORTH ^talk 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, the design is too old (pre-1989), assuming no copyright was registered. Vermont might give us a problem. We should be able to check in [1] (since none of the actual signs bear copyright notices), though I'm not sure how comprehensive that is. I'm actually not finding anything there; I don't know if that's because it's incomplete or because the Thruway never copyrighted the shield. --NE2 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the Thruway shield is older than 1989...Jgcarter 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And? That means either the database is incomplete, I'm not looking properly, or it's not copyrighted. --NE2 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After researching this one a bit, I think we can relax. All the states have to follow the federal MUTCD, which states very clearly that:

Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield.

Since all the state MUTCDs containing any unique shield specs (such as ours and PAs) are supplemental, they are of necessity public domain as well (which would make sense). The bit about the interstate shields has something to do with AASHTO claiming copyright for some reason. But it doesn't seem to stop anybody. Daniel Case 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Interstate shield is trademarked, but not copyrighted. --NE2 18:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles without talk pages

How many New York State Route articles don't have talk pages attached to them? I just added one for New York State Route 320, along with an NY 320 shield. ---- DanTD 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question that doesn't have an easy way to determine the answer. The only way to determine this is to check each article and ensure that it has been tagged, through the template's "what links here" or other means. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An article without a talk page will have the "discussion" tab in red (non-existent internal link). Fwgoebel 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

Due to other priorities in reality (gasp!), my editing time has become extremely limited and it is likely that there will not be a March issue. My apologies. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for US 9

Pursuant to the many suggestions it should be taken for a GA nom, I have just put U.S. Route 9 in New York on peer review to see what other people, particularly those from outside the project, might think. Daniel Case 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

US 9 GA nom

I have at long last nominated U.S. Route 9 in New York as a Good Article. I think it's our best article so far; hopefully a reviewer will agree. Daniel Case 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to fix this: "New York's 1-9 concurrency: the subway line above and the highway below, both in the Bronx." US 1 does not run here, and the 9 subway service has been gone since 2005. The article also says that the US 9/NY 9A is the first overlap in New York, but US 9 overlaps I-95 and US 1 on the George Washington Bridge. --NE2 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see you already did (don't take it too literally; it was sort of a humorous way of putting it that wouldn't be clear to most editors outside of the NYC metro area). Good point re the 9-9A thing; I'll fix it. Daniel Case 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Vish passed it! We have our first project GA! Daniel Case 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List of routes as numbered in 1924

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/Historical information from the 1920s. --NE2 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master son^{T - C} 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Old Country Road?

What talk page tag could be used for Old Country Road in Nassau County and western Suffolk County? Since it's an unmarked county road in Nassau, and a major Town of Huntington road in Suffolk, I don't think either NYS Route tag is appropriate, and I have doubts about the NY County Roads tag. ---- DanTD 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a county-maintained road, I don't see what's bad about tagging it with the NYCR project template. --Polaron | Talk 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only part of it that's county-maintained is in Nassau. ---- DanTD 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's part of a county route, I think the NYCR tag is fine. Ridge Road isn't a state route for it's entire length, but it carries the NYSR tag. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo requests

If anyone has pics for NY 245 or NY 31 east of Wayne County, those would be great additions to the articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of changes to project practices and standards

In conjunction with the recent efforts at WP:USRD to consolidate the number of articles (more specifically, the number of stub articles that will never be expanded, or "permastubs") that exist, I am proposing a pair of changes to the practices and standards of our project.

The first proposal is to move all decommissioned state routes to their formerly held route number. In some cases, this proposal matches what has already been done in practice; however, in others, the article on the decommissioned route is currently an article on a county route that has replaced it. The purpose of moving all decommissioned state routes to their former designation is to eliminate the county route name from the title, reinforce the notability of the road as a former state route, and discourage the creation of more permastub county route articles, the presence of which, unfortunately, seems to be growing. For those who doubt the necessity of the moves, please see the notability guideline established by USRD for all articles within the scope of the project, including all those covered by NYSR. The practice of keeping decommissioned state routes at the current state route title has been in place for a while in Oklahoma, and has worked well.

The second proposal is to merge all articles on bannered routes of state highways into the articles of their parent. To accomodate this, a second-level (== Headline text ==) section named "Bannered routes" will be added to the standard. This section will provide a short description of the bannered route, and will feature an infobox similar to {{usban}}.

Both changes will, in my opinion, improve the quality of articles produced by this project (and USRD) by reducing the number of stubs that are ultimately created. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel it depends on the circumstances. In the case of NY 44A, which is now US 44, it should (and has been) moved to US 44 and added a bit about it. However, in the case of NY 17, which has significantly more history than 44A, there should be a seperate article, because there should be more than just a blurb in the Interstate 86 article.Smartyshoe 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal relates to routes such as NY 99, which has been replaced by a county route. Routes that have been usurped by another state or U.S. route or interstate will remain part of that article (so NY 44A will remain part of US 44). As for the NY 17 comment...I don't see the relevance of it as NY 17 is a current route and will be for at least another five years. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NY 17 will eventually become Interstate 86. When this does happen, we should keep the article, is what I'm saying. Smartyshoe 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we can decide that when the time comes. Besides, it would be incorrect to redirect NY 17 to I-86, as we would be excluding the north-south segment of NY 17 from New Jersey to Harriman. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what if just a portion of the road became a county route? (Part of old NY 82 is now County Route 83 (Dutchess County, New York) however NY 82 still exists. What about there? I think keep both articles in that case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose both could be kept, but,honestly, I would be hard-pressed to keep CR 83 if it was sent to AFD. A county route is not notable by default, especially when numerous editors outside of USRD question the notability of state routes. As a reminder, my proposal deals with the articles on routes such as NY 99 that have since become county routes, which would be moved from their present location as a county route article to New York State Route 99. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with either of these changes. Daniel Case 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of state support here too. —Scott5114↗ 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead, support from me. I never liked having county route articles. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Support since otherwise we are left with too many stubs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So there goes my proposal to write that article on New York State Truck Route 25. I suppose I could understand the reasoning behind that, but not when it comes to suffixed versions of NY 25 & NY 27. And frankly, I don't like the idea of deleting or merging all route stubs. Articles on NY 101, NY 102, NY 108, and the like are short, because the roads themselves are short. ---- DanTD

The stubs will be examined on a case-by-case basis. My concern right now (and when I wrote this proposal) are routes like NY 329 in Watkins Glen or NY 220 in Harford Mills, which don't really go anywhere or connect to anything. NY 108 would fall into that category as well, but not the others. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would, though, like to make a case for some county routes as notable, even though as a whole I don't think they're notable (although doing so would, I admit, let me write an article on my street). Specifically, at some point I do intend to create "Ulster County Route 47" since it is the highest elevation improved free public through road in the state (a careful choice of wording designed to exclude not only the Whiteface Mountain Toll Road but a couple of other, higher roads in the Catskills that either aren't paved (highest public free road in NY: Greene County Route 8 between Bearpen and Vly Mountains, and then the dirt road almost to the summit of Bearpen Mountain is open to public travel (unlike the Hunter Mt. fire tower road), but is probably a privately-owned road (goes to 3,500 feet, though). It's also part of the decommissioned middle segment of NY 42. But I think the former aspect makes it more notable. Daniel Case 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't the date & time turn up on my signature? ---- DanTD 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably used three tildes in your signature by mistake. It happens to me a lot. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with moving routes away from their current designations. The notability, as a former state route, is not in question, but we should use the current name. --NE2 09:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is there any reason you object other than personal preference? Keep in mind that keeping the articles at their current location wrongly encourages the creation of more county route articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because if there is a present name for something, the article should be called that? --NE2 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We should use the SR designation so that we don't get more CR articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We should get more "notable" CR articles. We shouldn't use old names for "political" aims. --NE2 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statement implies that these notable CR articles exist. In reality, with the exception of some downstate arterials, they don't. This isn't New Jersey, where the system is statewide. There are very few (and there may not be any) instances of county route numbers crossing county lines. In upstate New York, every major arterial is a state route (reference or touring) or "higher". And there's nothing political about the proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation. There are 4 possible scenarios:

1. A whole state route is now designated as a whole county route. In this case, the state route gets the article, hands down.
2. A whole state route now runs along a portion of the county route. In this case, it depends on the notability of the rest of the county route.
3. A portion of a state route now runs along a whole county route. In this case, the county route should be merged into the state route under history.
4. A portion of a state route now runs along a portion of a county route. In most cases, keep both, however, if the county route is mostly old state route, only keep state. Once again, either way, put something about said county route in history. Smartyshoe 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about if a state banner route overlaps a whole county route that is primarily recongnized strictly as a County Route? I don't know how aware you are of this, but Suffolk County Road 48, has always been a county road, but took part and then most of New York State Truck Route 25 with it. The only parts of NY Truck 25 that aren't multiplexed with SCR 48, are Moore's Lane, part of Sound Avenue, Aldrich Lane and half of Franklinville Road. The way things stand now, I could do a whole article on SCR 48 and mention NY TRUCK 25 grew onto it, and/or I could give the existing New York State Route 25 article a whole new chapter on NY TRUCK 25. ----DanTD 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. However, I must point out an exception to the rule above. NY 113 used to refer to what is now SCR 104. However, NY 113 is now a different route nowhere near the original. However, while it should be mentioned that the route used to refer to 104, we should not merge 104 and 113, as a route in Suffolk County and a Route in Dutchess County bear no relevance to eachother. Smartyllama 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Old Nyack Turnpike (Rockland County 52) comment

The segments of County Road 52 in Nyack and in Spring Valley used to be joined, and in fact, were part of the Original Nyack Turnpike. The Turnpike crossed Pascack Road heading west and then, according to old maps, jogged northward on the same alignment as Central Avenue for a little ways and then turned west without connecting with Central Avenue.

When the Thruway was built, it obliterated the segment between Pascack Road and the abovementioned jog, but a replacement for it was built on the North side of the tollroad from Pascack Road to Central Avenue where it rejoined the Old Nyack Turnpike alignment. This I saw in the late 50's and early 60's when I used to visit my dad every summer when he lived in that general area. When I returned to New York in 1982, I noticed that replacement road was gone and the break in the Old Turnpike as described existed.

This history no doubt explains why both disconnected segments of the Old Nyack Turnpike had the same County Road number.

sjl

Sjlevine34 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

County Route 14 (Suffolk County, New York) reference

Why have I been having trouble adding the reference to the infobox on County Route 14 (Suffolk County, New York), and how do I know I won't have this problem in the future? ----DanTD 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference was placed in "length_ref" with no length specified, therefore the length row (and the ref) will not display. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I just fixed that. ----DanTD 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunken Meadow State Parkway tags

I noticed the tags on the article I wrote on the Sunken Meadow State Parkway. For citing sources, I'd say the link from NYC Roads.com, not to mention the articles it refers to should be considered acceptable. But what's so wrong with the "tone" of the article? ----DanTD 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference route sorting

Would it make sense to separate Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes into parkways and other routes? While all are generally known by name, this is even more true for the parkways, and it seems those should be sorted by name, not by number. --NE2 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That category should be renamed into a solely reference route category, where every reference route is listed there by number, then a new category dedicated to parkways only. I've never been a fan of the "Reference Routes and Parkway Routes" moniker anyway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the route log and traffic data report (also Appendices A and B), NYSDOT is unclear on whether the "parkway routes" are actually reference routes. I'd be willing to go with Appendix A and say they are. --NE2 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, that's reading way too far into it. Most parkways have reference route designations, so to me they're reference routes regardless. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, however, that it's necessarily useful to have a category for the numbers of the parkways. We already have a list of the parkways by number. --NE2 09:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the parkway name for sortkeys, that's the best option - creating a separate category for them. The reference route category goes on the assumption that the sortkey is the portion of the designation following the "9". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if it's worth it to include the parkway numbers in the reference route category, especially because they are set apart in the numbering system. --NE2 09:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following this logic regarding "parkway routes". To me, any state route with a number over 900 (with the obvious exclusion of I-990) is a reference route. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the NYSDOT documents make a clear distinction, while others don't. --NE2 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So are there any objections to moving the parkways from Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes into a new Category:Parkways in New York? If you want them sorted by number, you can go to the list, where they actually have the number. --NE2 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I take objection to their complete removal from the category. They still have 900-series designations and should be in the reference route category. Separating these, to me, appears to be creating a unnecessary second tier that only exists on paper, if at all. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be putting the parkway category inside the other one. --NE2 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I guess, but it still seems unnecessary, especially if the existing cat isn't renamed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to renaming the existing one - Category:Reference routes in New York? --NE2 20:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That works. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 3#Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes. --NE2 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Full 1970 log

Thanks to David Golub, there is now a complete 1970 route log on [2].

Here's the apparent status of the Interstate changes, from the January 1971 FHWA route log:

• I-88: ends at Schenectady, thus I-787 is unchanged
• I-481: shown as 9.6 miles, so the extension north of I-90 had not yet been approved
• I-495: shown as 9.3 miles, which is approximately the distance between I-278 and I-295, and may include the Lincoln Tunnel (I-495 NJ is still listed as 2.1 miles)
• I-678: shown as 6.3 miles, so not yet approved (was the south end at I-495?)
• I-695: shown as 7.7 miles
• I-878: shown as 15.6 miles, which is too short to be the full length

[3] is also interesting, probably reflecting cancellation of several of the routes. I think the lines with X's are proposed additions. --NE2 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, this link proves a lot of what I've already known(http://www.greaternyroads.info/pdfs/state70.pdf). Still, I distinctly remember NY 24 & NY 113 overlapping each other as they crossed the Peconic River before terminating at NY 25 in Riverhead. I also remember New York State Truck Route 27A along the Moriches Bypass, but that's not listed there. Neither is New York State Truck Route 25, which still exists. Check out the official description of NY 347 on page 42. It proves Route 347 was supposed to go between Exits 55 & 56 on the Long Island Expressway, and provides further evidence that the current description of NY 111 was established in 1966, not 1972. ----DanTD 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

NYS Route redirection project

I'm already on a spree of redirecting as many redlinks on User:Nyletak/New York Routes to their parent routes as I possibly can, and I've swiped a list of everyone from 11A-99 so far, with some of them completed. Is anyone else willing to do the same for other New York State Routes? --DanTD 12:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
3. USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
4. However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo request: Cross Bronx Expressway

If anybody has any photos of the Cross Bronx Expressway, can you please upload them and add them to commons:Category:Cross Bronx Expressway? Thank you. --NE2 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I got one this evening - but its not digital - so it'll have to wait.^Mitch32^contribs 02:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Article reassessments

Some of you may have seen this on the USRD newsletter, but a few days ago, I evaluated the quality of our (NYSR) B-Class articles. Sadly, a lot of them were lacking in content, particularly in the history department. At the time of the check, we had 168 B-Class articles, and only about 50 of those were what I and others involved with assessment would consider B-Class (that being a complete route description; a complete, referenced history; and a junction table with referenced mileposts) in this era of USRD (and by extension NYSR as well). The cause of the issue is fairly clear: most of the articles were assessed when access to history for New York routes was at a premium, so a history section wasn't one of the criteria. Thanks to the efforts of Polaron, NE2, and others, there is more access to NY route history now than there ever has been.

I improved about 50 more articles over the next few days, and demoted the rest (about 65) one level to Start-Class today. I'll also check the Start-Class category in the same manner. If anyone has any questions on why I assessed an article a particular way (and this applies for any article I assess), or any questions about assessment at all, you can ask here, on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Regards, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And how to improve them...

On a related note, categories were recently added to the USRD project template that now allows for the breakdown of assessment by state. The results are just about as disturbing as those found above: although we have roughly 100 B-Class articles and 120 Start-Class articles, there are almost 400 stubs, second-most in the US behind Pennsylvania, which has a shade over 400. That means 65% of our articles are stubs. To get an article up even one level to Start, all that needs to be added is a route description and a junction list. To sweeten the deal, most of the articles already have a junction list. See Category:Stub-Class New York road transport articles for the complete list.

I discussed this situation with Mitchazenia online, and we came up with the idea of a weekly collaboration to improve an article to B-Class. A recent article that benefited from this type of effort was New York State Route 380, which was brought up from stub to B through the assistance of several editors. So, what I propose is the launch of our own version of the USRD article improvement drive, where one NY stub article is picked weekly to be improved to at least B-Class. Would anyone be interested in such a collaboration? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So does this mean all the stub articles and articles on short roads in New York State are threatened now? This doesn't say much for the current state of Wikipedia, and judging by the rampage of deletions on television episode & character articles, things are getting really bad around here. ----DanTD (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not being threatened in terms of deletion, but their current state is depressing. It also doesn't say much for the project when roughly 7/10ths of the articles it covers are stubs. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at several of the articles that I created (going directly from my user page). I found that at least the first eight or so do have route descriptions, but most are listed as Stub-Class. If a route description does exist, albeit brief, is that sufficient to place it at Start-Class (and perhaps also remove the stub indicator at the bottom of the article)? Fwgoebel (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be true. I went to your page and clicked on the first route I saw, New York State Route 30A. It came across to me as the perfect start-class - good lead, complete route description, and a full junction list. Then I looked at the talk page and (shockingly) saw it was marked Stub. I'd say anything that has the three items I mentioned is start-class, and would be B with those three items plus referenced mileposts in the junction list (using the traffic counts) and history. I can help out with history more often than not, so if anyone needs help in that department, let me know. But, in any case, feel free to reassess any article as you see fit. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at most of the routes on your page and reassessed one other as Start-Class. I left the others with route descriptions as stub mostly for either a weak lead or a cursory route description. I'll gladly discuss individual article assessment ratings on the talk page of that article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this point is lost, what's everyone's opinions on an article improvement drive? Yay? Nay? If yay, would you contribute? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably contribute but leave it unfinished - but it's a collaboration, so others should be helping. --NE2 08:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that this is slightly off track but what the state of articles in other states and are they as bad? Is this something that needs to be dealt with accross the board on all state road projects. Seddon69 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed just as bad in the other states (see WP:USRD/A/S), but a lot of the projects near the bottom (when sorting by relative wikiwork, the uppercase omega) have been largely inactive. It's also worth noting that New York's total wikiwork (lowercase omega) is the highest in the nation, which means that we have a lot of room to improve. As for across the board improvement... if other states have the editor base to start an AID, then they can start one, but it isn't practical to implement one everywhere unless we know there will be editors who will participate. By contrast, NYSR has been consistently active for years (at least since I've been here, and that's since May 2006) and is thus IMHO the perfect WikiProject to be the pilot project for a statewide route AID. There's also the USRD AID that covers articles across the nation, but so far it's had mixed success. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially for long routes and/or those that interconnect major urban centers together. I would even strive to improve such articles to a point where it can have a reasonable chance at passing GA status. I will definitely help out with this. If this can be sustained, then it might even be extended as a model for other subprojects to emulate. --Polaron | Talk 15:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea of improving them, but a lot of the information I want to get in order to do so, won't be available to me until at least Late-December or Early January 2008. That's when I'm coming up for a road trip from Florida with my parents. And if I miss anything there, I can always try sometime between May-July 2008, because that's when I'm planning another one on my own. In some cases, some of the information that administrators have doubts about can be found on the links attached to them. ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How about starting with something like history of New York's state highway system, so we can get a handle on how the system works, especially with respect to signage vs. maintenance? --NE2 20:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - We need to start with desperate articles, specifically New York State Route 22. That article needs to be done first.^Mitch32^contribs 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the main impetus behind my proposal was the amount of stubs that exist, and personally, I'd like to improve at least a few of those before we move on to a group collaboration on a new article. But, in any case, since it looks like we've got a good amount of support of the AID, we'll move the discussion of what article to select to the upcoming AID subpage. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Page is active at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/Article Improvement Drive. The first article is New York State Route 22, which will remain the AID article until at least December 2. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

It's been a week since the AID was launched and I believe it's safe to say that, so far, the program has been a success. In just seven days, NY 22 has gone from a low Start-Class article to a high-quality B-Class that is only a few notches shy of Good Article status (IMHO). Thanks to everyone who participated in the collaboration.

The second AID collaboration is interesting in that it encompasses two articles - Interstate 90 in New York and the heavily-related New York State Thruway. Due to this situation, this particular collaboration will last for two weeks.

All future AID news can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes/Article Improvement Drive. Also, nominations for future AID collaborations are being taken at WP:NYSR/AID under "Ideas for future collaborations". If you know of an article that could benefit from the NYSR AID, feel free to post it there. Regards, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)