Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/Archive 4

Decomd type for the junction table

This type was fine when we still used {{routeboxny}}, as there was no other way to show former routes in the infobox, but now that we've migrated to a table format, is there any reason that this is still used? I can't think of a good reason to retain it, as the current designation/road can be listed in the road column then its former designation in the notes. If no one disagrees, I'll start removing it across the board (I've already been removing it on articles I've worked on). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

TMF - I know I've already kinda discussed this with you (though it may not have really been a "discussion"... and what I said may not have come across as what I wanted to convey...) I can understand if for current routes that once had different numbers it isn't used and instead listed in the notes column. However, myself loving to know little historical intricacies (I love noticing where roads where flat out moved a couple hundred feet to the east, or whatnot...) I find the different shade from decomd useful in tracking this. MY personal feelings are that it should be left in, and perhaps expanded (which I know is totally opposite what you're going for...) to distinguish between truly decommissioned routes, re-numbered routes, and stretching this as far as exit lists, even former exits (I don't believe there's any standard for that much...)
My opinion is we either go that direction, or remove things like decommissioned routes, non-accessible junctions, closures, etc. altogether. I would like to see them left in...
My other thoughts on why the decomd should be left in is this: Its going to get confusing for people reading these lists when you have a lot of junctions as State Routes and US Routes and Interstates, and then suddenly breaking into this list is a puny little "Four Rod Road" (to use an example I was working on recently) and have to scan over to the notes column to realize why this seemingly insignificant road is there. If it remained colored (like the non-access remains colored) then they'll know off the bat that there's a reason this is listed differently. In these scenarios, however, I'd still like to see the former route designation placed in the route column, use the street tag for the current name, and then perhaps instead of (example, my redundancy) saying "former routing of..." in the notes column, list when it was decommissioned.
A key of colors would also be helpful, to help remove redundancy of having to say "former routing of" or "no-access - overpass only" or what have you. Just my $0.02. ClarkCT (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to break this down by point...

Exit lists are completely out of the realm of NYSR; those are based off of the exit list guide, which specifically forbids colors for these types of purposes. The only allowed color is a light shade of gray for unconstructed portions. And yes, I personally would like to eventually ditch the colors altogether in hopes of completely eliminating the mental barrier that currently exists in USRD between exit lists and junction lists. Again, the only reason colors were used initially (from what I see) is that there was no room in the infobox to say "former routing of Route X" or "Route Y joins here" and no one thought of just moving the list out of the box and into the article proper. The colors were then retained for easy conversion to the tables and now are, really, pretty much unnecessary. My thoughts now are identical to my thoughts in July. And as for the noaccess type... I can't answer why those were ever included going back to the routebox, as they're not junctions. I think the only one who knows that answer is the one who made the box, and I believe that user is inactive now.

I don't see how having a "normal" road mixed in with signed routes on a junction list is any more jarring than its presence on an exit list.

The colors used to have a legend until it was replaced (not by me) with hovering tooltips. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember reading somewhere that the original style came from California (which makes sense with all the table code littering their talk pages), and I believe their bridge logs show crossings with no access. So blame Caltrans, I guess. --NE2 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That is correct :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it would be California, with their button-copy signage and weird Interstate shields... :P But, anyway, the NYSDOT traffic counts don't include these non-connections (except in incredibly rare cases, but those are very few and far between), so that reason goes out the window in our case. I don't personally see any reason to keep "noaccess" in the NY junction lists - if California wants to because they have a mileage for it, that's fine - to each their own. And, of course, my thoughts regarding the decomd type remain the same. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference Route List criteria?

I've noticed the List of reference routes in New York, especially for Regions 4 an 5, and probably others, is quite incmomplete. I'm not just talking about the ones that don't have articles, but the tables don't even show a lot of them that are listed in NYSDOT's traffic reports I'm willing to try and complete the tables as much as I can with the rest of them, but I was just wondering if maybe they didn't seem as complete because of some unlisted criteria for listing them (length? number of junctions? proximity to a major route or metro area?). If this is not the case, within a few days I'll download the traffic reports again and complete the tables to the best of my ability. Once this is done I'm also willing to start on completing at least stubs for these, (article leader, info box, and junction list, I don't know how much of a route description there is going to be for some of these, the leader could say it all without even trying...) If I have no objections by, say, 27 Nov 2007, I'll go ahead and start on regions 4 and 5, then work my way through the others. ClarkCT (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no criteria, it's just incomplete. Also, it's been determined that reference routes need to have another added layer of notability to get an article. Most don't; that's why every existing article on a non-parkway reference route has been redirected or merged if possible. We already have 400 stubs; we don't need any more, especially ones that can never be expanded and ones that don't need to be written. For the vast majority, the entry in a completed table would be enough. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just incomplete. I filled in some recently, but got sidetracked. --NE2 20:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Region 5's pretty well complete now, Give me a couple days and I'll go through and try to complete some of the other regions (esp. those that are still using the more basic table that appears to have been a straight copy from one of the reference sites.) My next question, since its been mentioned that we don't really want any more pages for reference routes at this time, since 98% of them well never get above stub status: While I'm doing this would you guys prefer that I remove the wikilink code for redlinked reference routes? At least for now so people looking at the list might not be tempted to make a page for them? Finally, my other project on my agenda pertaining to NY routes, for now at least, is to go through as many stubbed reference routes as I can and merge any relevant info to the nearest relevant NY Route page, and change the former stubs to redirects. I'll only merge them if there is a proper relevance, otherwise I'll leave them as stubs for now. And for the record I apologize about some of my edits on other route pages, incomplete or whatnot, I'm new to the routes things so I was simply following what I saw for guidelines on the project page. I see some of you have been "following" me around fixing things, thank you, I'm mostly doing this to get the information up, and realize some of my edits are rough with respect to following MoS guidelines, among other things... ClarkCT (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, don't just remove redlinks. If they're simple wye connections, redirect to the list entry and then remove. Otherwise there's probably somewhere else to redirect. --NE2 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

An idea for short suffixed routes

The Oklahoma project (WP:OKSH) has an interesting approach to suffixed routes; instead of giving each route its own article, as we do, it merges all of the suffixed routes into the parent article. To be honest, in some cases, that's not a bad idea. No, I'm not advocating that all spurs be folded into the parent article, as a good chunk of spurs in New York are just as important, if not more, than some non-suffixed routes. As such, there's a lot that can be written for some of the suffixed routes and articles on them can reach high levels, as NY 9A has. What I am suggesting is that the really small and (gasp!) minor spurs be merged with their parent. For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of minor are routes that have no intersections with signed routes other than at its termini and are relatively obscure, like NY 7A, or routes where little is known about the spur, like NY 146B.

For this purpose, I propose a new section be added to the NYSR guideline: "Suffixed routes", a list of every suffixed route that a route has. If the route has no spurs (like NY 8), then the section will not exist. The section is extremely similar to the "Spurs" section at OKSH - the name is different due to the fact that suffixed routes are not always spurs - some are loops, like the former NY 7C was.

Trial runs of the section have been launched at NY 7 and NY 146 (hence the abundance of NY 7 and NY 146-related references in this post). As shown on NY 146, if a spur is significant enough to sustain a full-blown article, it is still listed in the section but is pared down to a brief description and wikilinked. As shown on NY 7, the section is flexible enough to handle two different alignments of a designation (see 7B). Note that the suffixed route is then dropped from the browse once merged into the parent article. If no one has any objections, I'll add the section to the project page and begin merging some of the really short routes into their parent. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, we would definitely need to come up with a definition of what size of a suffix route qualifies it for its own article versus sub-sectioning it with its parent route. I assume that the named pages for the suffixed routes will remain, and just redirect in any cases where it is merged to its parent route, that the redirect include the # for the route - (ie, if NY7A were redirected to NY 7 it be redirected as "New York State Route 7#Suffixed Routes" or whatnot, instead of just simply hitting the top of the page (this is one thing that bugs the ... out of me). If the suffix route has its own heading for its description, even better. Also, depending on the length of the Intersection table of the parent route, I'd like to see an internal target link from the suffix route's description to the suffix route's intersections.

Or, a different way to do it, alternative to TMF's, would be to put both the suffixed route's description and intersection list after all parent route info - make it like its still on its own page (even with infobox?) below everything else pertaining directly to the parent route (ie, between the intersection/exit table and the References) as a Level 1 heading? (I rather like this idea myself, but thats just me...) ClarkCT (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The second idea, more or less, was originally attempted on NY 146 and it did not work out well at all. I also see no reason to keep it like it has its own article, and here's my reasoning: the routes that I merged have only two major intersections, its termini, making the intersection table unnecessary; the route description and histories are so short for these that both can be folded up along with the lead and consolidated into a few sentences, as was done with NY 7A. The communities box and references are also redundant as well (most of the ones that would be merged are in one or two locations, and the parent article's references section can just be used).

The first item you mention (redirecting to the suffixed route section instead of the article) was done for at least the NY 7 spurs last night; not sure about NY 146, I didn't assemble that section. Also, hitting on the other point... right now, I'm not looking at spurs that have major intersections in between its termini, so the link to intersections point wouldn't apply. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but NY 7A does have an intersection list at New York State Route 7#Alternate Route 7, unless I'm reading that wrong and Alternate Route 7 isn't the same thing as 7A... That's what prompted me to say that. ClarkCT (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate Route 7" is the limited-access portion of NY 7 in the Albany area that's locally known as NY 7 Alternate. The name seems to derive from the planned designation for the route, which is shown on a 1985 Rand McNally map of New York as NY 7 Alternate. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We can place <div id=7A/> in the NY 7 suffixed routes section and then redirect to New York State Route 7#7A. --NE2 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even better. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the size and details of articles like New York State Route 25A, and even NY 25B & NY 25C, I'm not so sure this is a good idea. ----DanTD (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe those wouldn't be covered in this proposal as they have intermediate junctions with other state routes. --Polaron | Talk 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Polaron is correct; those three would be retained as separate articles and only given a brief mention in the list on NY 25. NY 25D, however, could be a different story as it seems like it was little more than a short loop off of NY 25 based on NYR. I haven't investigated that further, so I'll avoid it for now. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An extension of sorts on this idea

So, I know that this isn't exactly under the realm of State Routes, but I know that some of the junction lists, and other places among some of our articles, wikilink to county routes, but most of these don't exist. Now, this doesn't warrant making articles for each county route, obviously, and chances are, like reference routes, few of them would be long enough to ever get past a stub-length for descriptions and such, and it'd be a lot more pages too. Now, instead of deleteing CR wikilinks altogether, my idea is to make one page, ex [[County Routes in Erie County, New York]] (perhaps we can find a shorter title?) and use divs to list all the county routes on one page, with a short description, junction list (as much as possible) and perhaps a shortened version of {{infobox road}}. Its a lot of work, but it'll hopefully keep a ton of stubbed county route articles from popping up. (Not saying its a problem now, but it'll prevent it from ever happening). If this is done, perhaps the {{subst:NYint}} could be changed to format county route links such as [[Erie County Routes#(num)]]. Any existing CR pages would be merged into these pages and redirected, similar to the plans with spur routes. Yes, the 62 pages would be long, but they'd compact things instead of making a lot more pages. Just a thought, I'll see what the consensus is when I get the reference route tables done (soon!) and another page or two I'm working on in my Sandbox. I'm willing, right now, to take on most of the work for these if I can find the proper info sources and you are ok with it happening. ClarkCT (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're describing is similar to what was done in Rockland County, where most of the routes were combined into three pages containing descriptions, junction lists, etc. That shouldn't be a problem. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that yet. But it looks almost exactly like what I was thinking... I just gotta find the info. ClarkCT (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just of note - I am working on Erie County in the same form as Rockland County.^Mitch32^contribs 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now, there are red links to articles on Suffolk County Roads that I simply won't write about, because there really isn't too much that would make them worthy of an article. I'd gladly do an article on Suffolk CR 50 or Suffolk CR 105, and maybe even SCR's 2, 3, and 4, but SCR 1 & SCR 15 are roads I wouldn't even touch. I'd be just as happy leaving them to the existing List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York. ----DanTD 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating exactly what I was suggesting. Instead of making individual articles for every CR, expand the list of routes to be more descriptive of the routes within that list. Any redlinks in other articles would then be redirected to the list with a target at the proper road, ie #redirect [[List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York#15]] using <div id=15 /> within the list at the proper point. Any county routes that may be large enough to warrant their own article could be made separate or they could just remain in the list, as they'd probably still not make it past a stub even in their own article. I don't know if this is official, but I think using Rockland County's list as a template is a good idea. But that's just me. ClarkCT 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Communities box

The issue of "floating" cities/communities boxes came up on WT:USRD about two or three weeks ago, at which time it was determined that (according to my interpretation) the boxes should be removed if the route description is complete and every location in the box is given mention in the description. Since NYSR is one of the projects that uses said boxes, this has a direct effect on our structure.

Since some here may not have known about the USRD discussion, I'll open up the topic for discussion here. IMHO, if the RD is complete and it has all of the locations, the box is redundant and can safely be removed. Comments welcome. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to removing them. If anything, there needs to be a look if all of the locations so listed are even appropriate to be there. As an example, NY 30A does pass through the Charleston township, but not through the hamlet of the same name. So that name doesn't appear in the route description, and IMHO, doesn't even need to be there in the first place.

Looking at WT:USRD, one need to go to Archive 10 to see the discussion there. A lot of minutiae to be certain, but one thing stood out for me: Removing a communities box would make it easier to place a photograph instead, and the color thereof would be better at breaking up monotony and whitespace than something as predictable as what we now have.

As for project standards: For now, keep the Communities box, but either make it optional, or include it "for lack of a complete route description outlining the route's passage through the towns that would otherwise be listed here". Fwgoebel (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my thought process as well regarding the standards - I see no reason to remove either the box or the section (depending on how up to date the article is) from articles that don't have a route description. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffolk County Road stubs or not?

Looking back on a discussion regarding the status of County Route 16 (Suffolk County, New York), I've been wondering if some of the most recent Suffolk County Road articles(and at least two of the three I've been working on) genuinley deserve to be tagged as stubs. Suffolk CR 16 is well past 7K long, but I can't find out how long it was when the discussion was started. ----DanTD (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if the article is short, it is a stub, even if the road is long. :-) County routes are not automatically notable, but one of several kilometers, going through busy suburbs, would be notable. For more information, see WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Dan was referring to the length of the article, not the length of the road. (Though technically both attributes fit..) I would consider a stub to be one which is short to the point of only having one or two of the required sections, or if there are more sections but they are severely underdeveloped. The article mentioned is what I would consider to be past stub-status, though it is missing some sections if you're trying to get them to full article status meeting the standards of state and US routes. I would say at the very least, if the article has a fully developed road description section and some of the other more important sections, it is no longer a stub, but that's my opinion. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just using Suffolk CR 16 as a comparison point to articles like Suffolk CRs 50, 98, and 99, as well as my proposed articles on Suffolk CR's 36 & 93. I need a lot more work for the article on Suffolk CR 48. And yes, I am referring to the length of the articles, not the roads themselves. All of them have stub-tags on the front, and if they're too long to be stubs I'm considering having those tags removed. I honestly don't expect them to get GA or FA status anytime soon. ----DanTD (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffixed Route - show shield?

On NY 30, I inserted to show something I'd like to get feedback on. That is, if it would look (or be) good to include an image of a suffixed route together with the short description thereof. Comments welcome. Fwgoebel (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some would interpret that as using images in line with article prose, which is discouraged by the MOS. (Tables and infoboxes aren't generally regarded as article prose so those are fine.) I looked at how the OK project does it and they pretty much do it the same way - a list without shields. However, for routes that have or had just one suffixed designation, the OK project then renames the section to whatever the route is (in this case it would be ==NY 30A==) and floats the suffixed route's shield off to the right. That may not be a bad way to approach it for routes with one suffixed route, like NY 30. But for routes like NY 31 that have multiple suffixed routes, I don't know if adding the shields would provide any benefit to the article. It would probably be a good idea to either move this discussion to WT:NYSR or post a link there linking here, since this is a discussion that could affect the entire project. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a shield would serve solely the purpose of being the bullet. I imagine it would look intense on a route like U.S. Route 9 in New York with all of its suffixed routes, anyway. Don't get me wrong, it's just something I wanted to see if this would be at the very least, acceptable -- and if so, what consensus, if any, there might be. Fwgoebel (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think replacing the bullets with shields would, in the WP:MOS's eyes, turn the section from a list to prose separated by line breaks and in-line images, in which case the section would be a violation. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. The alternative would be to create tables in all of these articles and we have enough going on right now. Fwgoebel (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea. It gives us a reason to actually use a lot of currently unused shields to begin with. ----DanTD (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the shield images are already available (probably only for current suffixed routes of larger importance) I'm curious how it would look to put the shields mentioned under the header but before the "prose" of the section - is that still considered inline with prose? And would that look way too weird and clunky? (ie, Header, /line break, shield shield shield, /line break, list of routes/descriptions; If you can picture that visually, I'm not sure I can get it to show up right here...). Just something to mull over. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The only potential way I could see this idea flowing with the MOS is if something like

• NY 31A...
• NY 31B...

was done for routes with multiple suffixes and

NY 30A

NY 30A ...

was done for routes with only one. Now that I have no problems with; question is does the MOS? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the single suffixed route fits with the MOS. I haven't read enough into the MOS to see how the multiple suffix idea would fit. It looks ok to me, its not obtrusive, even if it is considered to be "inline" with the text/prose. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 12:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing for me is that one method would be used for multiples and another for singles. Yet this doesn't address what to do for suffixed routes that aren't significant enough to have their own article (like NY 10A (a single suffix on NY 10) or deleted routes. The simple thing is that if there is a single route, there should be enough text to make a large displayed shield appear as if associated with the section, as it would on NY 10 (since a full paragraph of copy is there instead of a separate article) but on NY 30, as well as right here in this discussion, there is just one sentence since NY 30A has its own article. Fwgoebel (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your issue here. I don't think the way the shields are shown should matter if the suffix route has its own article or not (ie, it should not matter how long the description of the suffixes are), I am very much liking the idea of following OK's project, with the exception of adding small shields into a multiple suffix list like TMF demonstrated.

That being said, on the topic of decom'd routes that are listed as suffixes, if the shield idea goes into effect, the shield shown should be the style shown at the time of the route's decommission. However this is only possible if the older style shields can be easily made the same way the current shields are made. TMF? Granted this would require making a lot of shields solely for that purpose, I'm guessing, which creates problems since I'm sure there are still bigger fish to fry with this project. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

@Fwgoebel: I'm not following your point either, since NY 10 is in the same category as NY 30 - a route with a sole suffixed route - so it'd use the "float" method. BTW, I looked at some Oklahoma examples, and it turns out the 30A shield was too large in the example above. I've made the change to the proper size. On the note of content, I don't believe that's an issue; the OK project has used that method for a while with less content in most cases (see Oklahoma State Highway 80 for an example).

@ClarkCT: It is possible to make them but it would be difficult to determine when NY transitioned from one style of signage to another (for example, from the original (?) cutout to the modern design with "N Y" on top, to the current design).

@All: Check out Oklahoma State Highway 74, which was my "inspiration" for this idea. I believe the reason that no shields are used is that every route (excluding 74A for reasons given there) is mentioned, with shield, in the junction list below it. That said, I'm not aware of any shields in NY that have gone completely unused as a result of the merging. NY 37 is a good example - even though two of the four suffixed routes are no longer in place, shields for all four are used in some capacity in the junction list below. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the size of the shield, to the width of 75px to balance with content, is fine. I just wasn't so sure if the larger, former size would have been too large with any article. I was looking at aesthetic balance, nothing more: In other words, hoping for the baby bear's size of the shield (this shield's size is just right!). The size I originally used for the bullet entry was the same as used in tables (25px), which you duplicated above. Fwgoebel (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If the phrase "only suffixed route" is going to be removed from every article, then the section should really be renamed for routes with only one suffixed route as I mentioned up above. Otherwise, there's bound to be people who ask "why is it called suffixed routes when there's only one route". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That does make sense. I will say that the "only suffixed route" phrase wasn't present in every case, but with its redundancy, I have begun removing it. Fwgoebel (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a start, I changed the suffixed route headers on NY 19 and NY 63 to their suffix route numbers. At some point the section descriptor on WP:NYSR should probably be rewritten to include all this info we're discussing here, particularly once a final decision is made on the 20/25px shields in multiple suffix route lists. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags on Long Island Parkway articles

I'm still waiting for answers regarding articles on various Long Island Parkways;

First, 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? The same goes for the Bethpage State Parkway.

Next, there's the Southern State Parkway; There's already a history chapter. Shouldn't the Hempstead Lake State Park area history be moved to this chapter? Plus, while I'm not 100% certain about the service area that was supposed to have been located between exits 17 and 18, any Long Islander over the age of 30 knows that there was a service area between NY 110 and Suffolk CR 47.

Meadowbrook State Parkway, Robert Moses Causeway, and Sagtikos State Parkway once had a note on the reversed-exit numbers the same as Wantagh State Parkway. They should be brought back.

Like the Southern State Parkway, most Long Islanders over the age of 35 knows that what was written in the history section of the Northern State Parkway is true. I honestly can't see any reason for the tags there.

I also had clippings of maps that proved that these many proposed and former interchanges existed, that have been unjustly deleted and targeted for deletion. Deleting them takes away evidence. ----DanTD (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

SM: "so motorists wouldn't have to risk their necks" and "north-to-eastbound motorists still face traffic jams" are two examples of improper tone for an encyclopedia; the former being a more glaring example.

SM and BSP: It's much better practice to use inline cites than to dump a list of references at the bottom of the article.

SSP: Not all Wikipedians - probably very few actually - are from Long Island and are over 30. You can't assume that they are. You may know it's true, but how does anyone not from the Island? The only way to prove it's true is to reference it.

Exit notes: I looked through the history of the Sagtikos Parkway article and as far as I can see, there was never such a note in that article. In the other two, the only note that was there was a generic "prefixed with <letter>, numbered from north to south", which is obvious by looking at the list.

NSP: See comment for SSP.

Last comment: You could always use {{cite map}} to support your claims instead of uploading the maps directly; in fact, unless the map is freely licensed, that's the only way to go when considering the chronically-tightening WP:NFCC. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

SM: I see your point regarding the tone, but the traffic condition at this interchange is still a problem. If there's going to be such a tag, it shouldn't really be for the whole section.

SSP & NSP: Most Wikipedians may not be from Long Island and over 30, but most Long Islanders over 30 do realize this is true. Besides, I thought the references were already in the external links.

Exit notes: Well, they are prefixed with specific letters from north to south. It's the main feature that explains why they're described in the wrong order.

Map citing: Ahh, but which to choose? Other maps have covered them. Besides, the uploaded maps tend to illustrate these interchanges a little better, even if they aren't free. ----DanTD (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. The history section of Northern State Parkway has nothing at all about the process of getting the land. Someone needs to borrow The Power Broker and add that. --NE2 08:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. From what I remember, The Power Broker was an incredibly biased source. ----DanTD (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased doesn't mean incorrect; the facts in the book have not been discredited. --NE2 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are...books published by respected publishing houses...As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." The Power Broker was published by Alfred A. Knopf and extensively footnoted. --NE2 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunken Meadow Update

Okay, I just updated the alleged "tone" on the Sunken Meadow State Parkway article. Can I remove the tag now? ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your change, I would think that a little more needs to be done - bringing it more to "third person neutral" and far more generalized. This discussion does belong on that article's talk page, however.

I then went back and re-worded it and removed the tag. Generally if you feel a tag can be removed after you edited an article/section to address it, why not be bold and remove the tag as well? Worst case, someone would replace the tag. When the tag was placed there, that editor should have put the specific concern in that article's talk page so that one would know where to start. It looked only to apply to that third paragraph, IMO. Fwgoebel (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just so happens that somebody did replace the tag when I removed it. Granted, it took me a few months to figure out why it was there in the first place, but I've had too much trouble dealing with people who tag articles and images that shouldn't have them. ----DanTD (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Category added

I've just created the Category:Transportation in Erie County, New York. Like the others, this applies to all transportation-related projects, not just roads. Who's going to start a mass-migration of articles? ----DanTD (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors and termini in junction lists

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive current status

Except for the first week, New York State Route 22, the Article Improvment Drive has been running on empty with only 3 users participating (TwinsMetsFan, Polaron, and I). TwinsMetsFan and I got into an IRC discussion on March 28, depicting our current status, the need for more editors, and how to get them. I have brought up this wondering why no one has helped us out. NY has 17 total editors, some I doubt are active editors, but we'd like to see more than 3 active ones with AID. If more people join, the better the articles will be with more opinions to how it should go. We are willing for any ideas of how to attract attention. The AID can't stay 3 people forever. Voice please. ^Mitch32^contribs 13:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Project to-do list updated

See Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/to do. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the project

At this point in time I see some issues in this project that I believe need to be addressed; however, I would like—no, desire—the comments of others on these issues (as maybe I'm the only one that thinks something is an issue). I've presented each topic in its own section below. Comments/concerns/opinions are needed for each "line item". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Participants list

The original NYSR participant list was merged into the USRD participant list a while ago according to what was then considered a consensus. When the merge was completed across USRD, a large amount of drama ensued, with the end result being that individual projects can reestablish their own, separate lists (per this section and the one below it). Since the NYSR newsletter has been resurrected, I'm going to resurrect the project participant list to keep everything centralized if no one objects. The USRD one is also getting pretty clunky and makes it difficult to find other editors from a state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea; no objections from me. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to bring up this at USRD soon when things settle down. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is probably the least controversial and least important item on the "docket", I've gone ahead and restored the list. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

The support that was shown for this when it was launched last November has dwindled to two or three editors right now—and to me, two editors ≠ project collaboration, especially when there are roughly a dozen people that identified NY as a state of interest on the USRD list. My question is simple, two-fold, and open-ended to all editors: 1) if you don't participate, why don't you, and 2) if you could change AID in a way that would cause you to participate, what would that way be? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Project activity

This ties in to the AID section above; the amount of substantial activity on articles within this project, excluding myself and a couple of other editors, has been very low over the last several months. I'm interested as to why this is the case. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of minor state routes in New York

This was originally intended to serve as a place to cover routes that would not have had much content within their articles. However, since routes less (IMO) deserving than these still have articles, and since the list is at its root subjective anyway and appears to not be supported by USRD, I say disband it and restore all the articles. The "cover in other article" idea I proposed on that list's talk page can still be explored, though—for the shorter spurs, which is what the list was really created for, that may be the way to go. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the following proposal of mine: There are 28 articles in the list currently. I think we should look into the idea of disbanding it and as mentioned below, trying out articles in sandboxes for each route. The short spurs, such as 433, can go into NY 22 or any relevant article. ^Mitch32^contribs 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That proposal really isn't much different than what I said above. Anyway...sandboxes are overrated, just revert the redirect to the list and rewrite the article if necessary. As for 433...in my opinion, it'd be better off in 128 since it is a former segment of the route, but maybe it'd work in 22 due to its (433) short length. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So shall we get consensus, because we can put something together with just a little work. Also, this should be easy, seeing if we turn it into a collaborative process. Are you up to it? ^Mitch32^contribs 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for other members of the project to sound off on all of these sections before doing anything—these proposals have only been open for ~35 hours, which is a very short time period in terms of the wiki. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In Connecticut's list, there is a well-defined, non-arbitrary criterion used for inclusion (routes that are not arterial roads) which is lacking here. Also, one reason for that list was as a target for the then huge number of uncreated articles. Now that all route articles have been created and are at least start class, that list has become somewhat useless and will eventually be merged with the main list when that is reorganized in the future.

That said, for the NY case, it should be possible to write a non-stub article for *all* of these "minor" routes even though some would only have a one-sentence history. I am all for disbanding the list as its inclusion criteria are somewhat arbitrary. If there is an obvious state route article for merging these into, then merging should be ok. But, personally, these could all actually stand alone in my opinion. With sufficient research and work, there will likely be sufficient information on these, I believe. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has dissented in the five days this has been up, I think that the interested editors can go full speed ahead on picking apart this list (although I find it humorous that one of the most "minor" routes was one of the first to be pulled out). I'd be reluctant, though, to automatically give sub-1-mile routes their own article - a lot of them have good merge targets (419 → 329, 412 → 12B, etc.). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

List of former state routes in New York

AFAIK, this was intended to be the former route answer to the minor route list, plus a cursory description of other former state routes to round out the lists. New York State Route 319 and New York State Route 368, two former routes, both now exist as standalone articles—if these were active routes, I'd have a very hard time justifying their standalone status. For this reason, I say disband this list as well and split off what's there into articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This I have a couple ideas for. 1 is to first decide which articles have a set amount of data/facts for their information. If an article can/should be tested for standalone status, it should exist. I also don't mind disbanding the list. Also, per the aforementioned examples, Route 319 has some history I didn't expect and if more can be added about the Norwich and Preston turnpike, I'm sure this can get a standalone. 368, could be merged into 321 if that's a good place to go. ^Mitch32^contribs 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...it seems to me that the only reason that the list existed in the first place was to serve as a place to cover short former connectors and spurs; however, those two plus New York State Route 428 exist independently. The division line between what gets an article and what doesn't has been incredibly blurred as a result. However, I suppose the "fate" of this list can be determined at some other time, since I'm more concerned with completing our currently incomplete coverage of current routes than providing coverage for routes that no one knew existed, locals and roadgeeks aside. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm willing to try for both, is first test out articles of the minor and former lists in sandboxes and see which can survive and which can go somewhere else. If we put that into perspective, I feel we may find that these roads have more potential than we think.^Mitch32^contribs 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What I want to see is an example of a route that doesn't get an article in your opinion, since our opinions on this issue differ greatly. Seriously though, of the six items I presented in this section, this is probably the least important since the subjectivity that goes into this list pales in comparison to the one that surrounds the minor list. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. 456 can't sustain an artcle, unless its got about 5 dozen history facts behind it. I'd say merge that to 22 or 9. 171 is complete junk, it shouldn't even be a SR in my opinion, no article there. 344 is like information-less, only reason I merged it, better off in 22. Now what do you think?^Mitch32^contribs 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Those are all active routes. This section, and thus my question above, is about the former state route list. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Hmm, again, 234 (which redirects to NY 31), 152, 402, and 398 would then be my choices.^Mitch32^contribs 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

234: agree, former routes that were supplanted by a route or paralleled the route that replaced it often don't need their own articles. That's why 234 redirects to 31, 87 redirects to 812, and 31C redirects to 317.

152: disagree. Its length is similar to former routes that currently have articles, as is its history. Compared to NY 323, NY 152 was both longer and has more history—it originally began in Rensselaer.

402: agree, just a state highway spur to a ferry.

398: agree, but what makes this any different than NY 368 (which is actually shorter) other than the fact it's not in Onondaga County? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than those, Its worth a shot giving the others an article, if it doesn't work, we'll find a place for them. Are you up to supporting that? This means disbanding roads in both lists and seeing what articles we can produce out of them.^Mitch32^contribs 14:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an answer to my question above regarding NY 398. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's your answer. 398 can probably get an article, but again, we'd have to see what to do with it and see how it turns out. We can probably do the 368 merge to 321 and shoot the liable information in there. That's being there's a consenus. Anything else?^Mitch32^contribs 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge 368 into 321; there's no common roads or history (whereas 324 and 325 have both). If it was a short spur around a half-mile in length, go for the merge, but that's not the case here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Then should it go to the main list? Because if we disband the lists, that's where it'll go.^Mitch32^contribs 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Assuming we're still talking about 368, it's already a standalone article, so why would eliminating the lists have any effect on it? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to eliminate the standalone article for a merge either to a list or a closely relavant article, which puts it at either NY 5 or NY 321. The only other idea I can think of would be when the Onondaga lists are created for NYCR, to put into the CR 107 section.^Mitch32^contribs 15:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You may now be willing to eliminate it, but there's a difference between the will to ditch it and the ability to. I don't see anywhere that it could be merged to right now and not look awkward. OTOH, if you really want to get rid of it, then start the aforementioned Onondaga County Route list.

Getting back to the point, I'm entirely fine with ditching the former route list and seeing what happens (discussion of the minor route list is to be in the section above this one); however, the "ditching" has to be done in a controlled manner so that no information is lost. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway, let's move this proposal discussion up to the minor section so we can discuss what to do with that.^Mitch32^contribs 15:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

County routes

County route articles, which were more or less dumped into the lap of NYSR a while ago, are a total mess—especially in the Niagara Region (check out the NY road articles needing attention category for proof). To attempt to make headway on cleaning them up, and in an attempt to restore some normalcy to this project's scope, I am proposing that a task force be dedicated to county routes. This task force, if there is enough support for it, will be created in conjunction with WP:USRD/SUB. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly needed. I am aware of users that are interested in NY County Routes, and it may go to good use to have people collaborating on these lists rather than 1 person in one place.^Mitch32^contribs 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a system to organize county routes is needed. I'd help with it out when I can. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'm willing to go to the USRD subproject page and support the proposal; however, I will do so only if those willing to participate in the task force promise to at least cut the number of county route-related articles needing attention in half within the next three weeks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

3 weeks is waaaaayyyyy too short. Especially in the Niagara Region, which is a total disaster. I'd say 6-8 is more sufficient.^Mitch32^contribs 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there has to be significant improvement in a short period of time. I personally don't believe it'd take more than three weeks to clean up half the lists - that's 21 days, and each list will probably take a couple of days at the most. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other items

If you have any other ideas for change, feel free to voice them below. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing for routes that are redirects to another article

My take: eliminate them. The kind of browsing I'm talking about are ones such as NY 234 on NY 31 or the three below the primary browse on US 9 in NY. In these cases, the shields would be moved to the history. Consider this: suffixed routes that redirect to their parent are already excluded from the browse. No browse is provided for 1920s and 1930s-era routes or for designations that have been used at least twice (example: NY 433 (1950s) redirects to NY 598 but no browse for it exists). I say we take the next step and restrict the browsing to active or former routes that have their own article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. This may prove better in the long run. ^Mitch32^contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about my proposal a bit, I still support it; however, if an article has an additional browse because a current route redirects there, then the browse should remain. So, I guess my proposal is now simply eliminate former routes from the browse unless it has its own article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bannered routes" changes

In light of "bannered route" being declared a neologism, I say we change the "bannered route" header on the five or so articles that have it to the actual name of the route. For example, on U.S. Route 20 in New York, "Bannered routes" would become "US 20 Truck". On NY 19, the only route in New York that has two of the same kind of bannered route (truck), let alone two bannered routes period, "Bannered routes" would become "NY 19 Truck" and the two routes would be separated by their location ("Belmont" and "Brockport"). I also think the bannered route section should be moved to between the suffixed route section and the junction list for consistency with the overall "prose before table" formatting. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Also to an addition I've seen pics of a Truck 298 when we get to it.^Mitch32^contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Original reference routes

Where shall these go? I feel either a NYSR subpage or a subpage of the reference route list. A subpage of either would give it time to grow as needed and could help unconfuse readers. Otherwise, the redirects that have been implemented and more would be added over time. Thoughts?^Mitch32^contribs 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably could be a project subpage. That subpage should also (once research is done in that area) cover when they were assigned and when the current system (900+letter suffix) was implemented. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current shields

We have an outdated shield template for NY by the looks of the pictures I've seen for most roads. The new shields as shown here do not curve as sharply at the top like they used to. Now it just makes a small curve at the top. I'm not gonna say its correct, but I think our shields should be replaced by this new looking one, as they seem to be popping up everywhere in NY. ^Mitch32^contribs 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking 458 happens to be a fluke in the signage - compare the curve to the 11B pictures there - that's the more standard curve that I'm seeing every day around here. Haven't seen any that look like that yet here in WNY. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its also shown here, here too, here again and such. Does this begin to look a little more common?^Mitch32^contribs 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe these are the exception and not the norm. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Mitchazenia is right. Look at the NY 59 page. The picture with NY 45 which was taken by me just this last summer shows shields in great condition, probably new. The NY 59 shield with NY 17 looks much older. Its all scratched up and stuff. Great catch by Mitch! -Airtuna08 (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to really analyze this, the official sign diagrams in the NY MUTCD supplement have a design that is completely different from both the current SVG shields and the shields linked above. FWIW, I have yet to see any shields in the Rochester area that look any different than our SVG diagrams, not even on sign assemblies that have been replaced within the last couple of years. However, now that I look at Image:Sign assembly on former NY 47.jpg, the shields there look very similar to the MUTCD design. I believe those shields date back to 2006 when Monroe Avenue (NY 31) was redone through Brighton.

The moral of the story is that each DOT region may be using different styles for some bizarre reason. It's definitely possible, considering the other inconsistencies (notably BGS presentation) that exist. – TMF 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reading: NY MUTCD supplement appendices - state route shields are on page 83 – TMF 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could simply be they just are just misprinted by people who don't care about roads like we do. Heck, I know of places were state routes are signed as US Routes by mistake. But I guess we'll find out over time how future signs are made. Still a good catch by Mitch, I never would have seen that. -Airtuna08 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an informational tidbit

I am looking at Yahoo maps and have seen something interesting. Both NY 314 and NY 456 have county route designations as well. Is it correct that both are County maintained? (314 is Clinton 42 and 456 is Clinton 58). This would something to know, especially when the 456 article is revived.^Mitch32^contribs 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Need history? You bet!

I found your list of maps that we can announce we have. I know of quite a number that I don't have that can also be useful. Nevertheless, I can't wait to add what I've got. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found one source. It's a photocopy of a Town of Brookhaven Proposed Revised Plan of Major Highways from August 4, 1937. What I don't know is what this map was published in. Now I'd like to find out the name of the book(s) where the formerly proposed 1969 division of New York State Route 27A, Republic Bypass for New York State Route 24, and other proposals were in. Too bad NE2 tagged them all for deletion, because now I'm sure nobody knows what I'm talking about. ----DanTD (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Valley roads task-force?

I've been working to assess as many articles as I can for the Hudson Valley WikiProject, and I've found that there are hundreds of road articles within the scope, and more bound to come. I proposed the idea of a possible roads task force on the WikiProject talk page, but I'm not sure if it would be better to have the HVNY or the NYSR as the host project. Thoughts? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a task force for Hudson Valley road articles is warranted, considering that said articles are for the most part in good shape. The U.S. map of recognized content reaffirms this point: all but six or seven of NYSR's recognized articles are from the Hudson Valley. Same deal with the NYSR SAs: all but five are from the Hudson Valley. From my understanding, a task force is meant to bring extra attention to a particular area that is lagging far behind in terms of quality, and the Hudson Valley is anything but. I'd give a task force to the North Country or the Southern Tier (two of NYSR's weakest regions in terms of quality) before I'd even consider one for the Hudson Valley.

Now, if HVNY wants to make a task force for their project, that's all fine and good but I don't see the benefit of it from the NYSR end since most of the articles are B+ anyway. – TMF 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ye Olde NY 35 (1927)

Currently, New York State Route 35 (1927) redirects to U.S. Route 20 in New York and New York State Route 35 (1930s) redirects to New York State Route 383, which was correct for what was originally known about the NY 35 designation. However, new information has come to light (by way of my 1935 RMcN) indicating that these routes were not separate; instead, they were the same route, extending from downtown Buffalo to Ontario Center at its greatest extent c. 1935. I find it erroneous to have two redirects for the same route point to two different articles with essentially two halves of the history; instead, I believe they should redirect to one place and that one place should go in-depth on NY 35 (1927)'s complete history. The question is where should that one place be?

The closest thing to a successor route is NY 383, which replaced NY 35 from Mumford to Walworth in the early 1940s. However, the main issue that I have with covering NY 35 in NY 383 is that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to cover the two suffixed routes that this incarnation of NY 35 had (one in eastern Buffalo and another in eastern Rochester). The other option is to give NY 35 (1927) its own article, where all of its history and suffixed routes would unquestionably reside. The issue with this, albeit minor, is that in its final form, which is traditionally used for a former route's description, it largely overlaps modern NY 383, NY 286, and NY 350; counterpoint, NY 35 followed a routing through downtown Rochester that is now devoid of any state routes, so that piece would be "original", making the nature of the description largely identical to NY 47 (mid-1930s).

I personally prefer to give NY 35 its own article, but I wanted to get some feedback on this before I do anything. – TMF 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Old 35 actually ended in Canawaugus (near Avon) prior to the 1930 renumbering, and was extended to Ontario Center as part of the renumbering. Because the old route now has multiple designations, it might be best to create a separate article. Some overlap is inevitable in this case but I don't have a problem with that. A related old route that might need to be treated similarly is New York State Route 39 (1920s).

Also, this discussion at WT:USRD seems related to this issue. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see a lot of similarities between this and that, but this (to me anyway) is much less clear-cut than that situation due to 1) the final routing of NY 35 being given two numbers upon removal (383 and 350) and 2) the existence of two suffixed routes, NY 35A in Buffalo and NY 35B in Rochester. Now, if the suffixed routes didn't exist, I'd probably be in favor of covering everything in NY 383 (since all of late 1930s NY 35 except for five miles in Wayne County initially was renumbered to 383) but different situations require different approaches IMO. – TMF 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly...

New York State Route 338 was recently created; however, it covers both the original and 1980 routes in a departure from the current USRD practice of dedicating numbered route articles to that specific alignment and not to its designation. So, unquestionably, it needs to be split, but the question is how? Should one of them keep the NY 338 article while the other goes to "New York State Route 338 (19xx)"? Should NY 338 become a dab and the article split into two new articles titled "New York State Route 338 (19xx)"? Unlike NY 35, there is no current alignment of the number; unlike NY 47, the last use of the designation was not the one that existed the longest. For these reasons, I'm puzzled as to what should go where, but one thing is for sure: it needs to be split in some way. – TMF 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to create or do the work right now, but here's my suggestion: New York State Route 338 (Saratoga County) and New York State Route 338 (Washington County) with my rationale being that regardless of dates or length of designation, each period's route fell entirely into a different (neighboring) county and could be separated that way. Doing the dates might be confusing because they'd have to include a range of years (and more text), and the same year for one's end was the same as the other's beginning. Fwgoebel (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rockland County Road list problem

Over on List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1-38), I see a problem with Rockland CR 28 that I can't fix. The intersections chart has a redlink for Blauvelt State Park that I'm having trouble converting to blue. ----DanTD (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I just redirected it to the proper article. ----DanTD (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NYSR Member Meet-Up?

I'm wondering if there are any members that would care to meet at some point, perhaps for a half day to a day, this summer. I would propose someplace where if any of us has any maps or other physical items that could be presented and reviewed yet safeguarded; another thought would be some WiFi hotspot where we could be able to access our project and perhaps do some editing with some face to face collaboration (but I don't have any of the Thruway service areas on my list). Location is definitely a concern, but with our shared love for our highways, I wonder if such a meeting should be a bit of a drive for everyone, to make the most of whatever round trip we as individuals would make. I'd guess not all would have vehicles, of course. Thoughts? Fwgoebel (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I'll be camping in Glens Falls in July, maybe we could do it there? I'm not sure how much people this would attract.^Mitch32^contribs 12:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Glens Falls is pretty far away from the majority of New York, so maybe a central location like Albany would be better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to any location at all. Albany would be extremely convenient to me and therefore, I'd oppose it out of deference to those in Rochester/Buffalo areas. I'd rather go somewhere central, that's at least a drive for everyone (again, so we can experience our roads on said trip) but isn't an extreme for anyone if we can help it. Perhaps...oh, Tully or Homer comes to mind, or even Norwich. Fwgoebel (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All three are a drive for me- Why not something like Columbia County and the Hudson Valley? I could get there and it would be easier.^Mitch32^contribs 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know of a few members who live in the Hudson Valley, so Columbia County would probably be one of the best places for it. Another possible location would be NYC, but that could be tough to do. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Participant Demographics

If you may be interested in doing a meetup during the summer of 2008, please add yourself to the table below and complete the other appropriate data that describes your situation and/or interests. Placing yourself here does not commit you. As of now, there is no date yet set, nor is a meetup definitely happening. Return to this table and update yourself as your needs change.

User	Region (Residence)	Distance willing to travel	Mode of transport	Comments
Fwgoebel (talk · contribs)	Albany/Capital	Entire state	Own vehicle
Juliancolton (talk · contribs)	Hudson Valley	Hudson Valley	—	Tentative
Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)	New Jersey	Hudson Valley	own vehicle
Daniel Case (talk · contribs)	Hudson Valley	Hudson Valley	Own vehicle

NY 32 makes FA

After an FAC that saw us remove all the shields from the intersection list per MOS:FLAG, and some other issues, I am pleased to announce on behalf of myself and Mitchazenia that New York State Route 32 has been awarded the gold star. Mitch has already gotten NY 174 and 175 up to that level, so this was perhaps not as big a deal for him (oh, what I am I saying, of course it is!), but for me, in over three years on Wikipedia this is the first FA I can claim some responsibility for, as I wrote most of the route description for the Woodbury-Albany sections and took all of the photos currently in the article. Mitch went the rest of the way, writing and researching a decent history section and putting sources in.

And for the project, this is the first article on a long, major route to achieve FA status. It may have company soon, if NY 28 makes it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hats off to both of you. I myself did a little here and there along the way, but I can't yet say that I've been as involved in a FA, at least not yet. If work ever gives me enough time to delve further into NY 28N or NY 30A (which I believe are the better articles amongst those with which I've been more directly involved and initiated), then I'll do what I can to move them along. Again, congrats. Well deserved. Fwgoebel (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NY highway sufficiency database

The information which has arrived is very full and detailed. It is the engineering report of which routes are in New York are....in which region, county, and control segment, each item of information in the data base pertains to a specific highway length between beginning and ending mile posts on that segment. Residency cods are included regarding highway maintenance. It is noted whether that segment is classed as divided or undivided, number of lanes in both directions, pavement width, shoulder width, shoulder type, surface content, surface condition, surface type, median width, median type, base type, sub-base type, terrain type, area type, culture type, percent parking, passing sight distance, per cent trucks, traffic count year, design hour volume, Average annual daily traffic, functional class, highway control code, year scored, year last work, access control to highway, adjusted rated capacity, national highway system principal arterial system, surface type from 1981 to 2006, reference marker, tandem truck designation, work type, pavement type. So this is the first database, the two files to explain the above glossary type terminology and expand on all the varieties of each of the above. There is also included a second database in the information sent named the Landmark table, which refers to the route, its letter, its region, county, control segment or county order control, beginning and end mile posts, landmark and reference marker number. So, therefore this is cool engineering information for the entire state. This info can be shared with whoever is working on NY road articles. The 2006 instruction pdf file is 1,550 Kb in length and the Highway sufficiency table pdf is 139,069 kb file which explain the data contents. The data is compiled with Microsoft access with the 2006 final landmark table being a *.ldb file (MS access) is 1 kb, the 2006 database table with all the inventory is a 11,892 kb *.mdb (ms Access ) which can be transferred into excel or into an html table. There is also information in the pdf files about the types of distress the engineering department looks for in highway repairs. For abbreviated examples see... Talk:New York State Route 100 Talk:New York State Route 343 SriMesh | talk 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

At its current state embedded within a long NY 28 article, the information offers the reader absolutely nothing about I-587. Interstates are more notable than state routes. Maybe to those local writers in NY it isn't, but think about it from a broader spectrum. Interstates are NATIONALLY FUNDED SUPER HIGHWAYS!!! State routes are not. Interstates are also more highly traveled by a wider range of people than a state route. Why do you think so many people sit in traffic on an interstate than get off and take an outside route? Because the average person is unfamiliar with us, state, or county routes. It is insane that I-587 is within the NY 28 article. And its not even given its own section. It's coupled together with a bunch of other state routes that share pavement with NY 28. The I-587 article should be rebuilt, and that can be done without removing anything from NY 28. -- UWMSports (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Article swaps

This is a proposal I have come up with after looking at a few of our articles. Well, remember how in 1980, NYSDOT made a massive swap with several counties for different highways? Well I have a proposal like this for our articles. Seeing some of the condition our articles are in, I'd like to see if that we can make swaps for that one article goes to the scrap pile while we revive one article. If it is a good idea, please support it. Who knows, we could end up with some better articles in the process.Mitch32^(UP) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --NE2 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A little clearer, seeing we have several articles that we cannot expand, my idea would be to merge the unworkable ones off and add new articles that have better potential in their place. It may help the process of the articles and really decrease the stub count of NYSR, which is still very high. This wouldn't apply to the parkways and such, but could give us some valuable articles in the process.Mitch32^(UP) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion that involves you

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiProject secession --NE2 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all

Hi, I'm Son (talk · contribs). I was a former member of this WP. I've decided to return once I learned about the recent fork. I look forward to editing, and I plan to start with routes in the New York City area and branch out from there! --Son (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR split from USRD

I noticed that WP:NYSR split from the WP:USRD project. Does this mean that we can no longer request maps via the Maps Task Force? If so, perhaps we could begin a Mapmaking group of our own, since many NY articles currently have no maps. Smb6009 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for New York road transport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This must end.

Look, a productive project split off. You cannot then swoop in and tell them that after you - the focus of two separate arbcom cases - caused so many problems as to drive them to this situation, that you have the right to invade the talk page and vote for it to remerge. Only members of this project should have suffrage. Not you.

Let the editors edit and create content, and stop engaging in a campaign of systemic harassment because you want to micromanage every single edit made on any road anywhere in the U.S.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To Shoemaker's Holiday & Mitchazenia: You are right that this has to stop. It would be easier if we could all come to a resolution here, without the continued bickering. (This is true for all parties involved.) NYSR should be a part of USRD...technically, it is now. :) However, under USRD, we should work toward a resolution that will make all sides happy. Please bear that in mind as we move forward. Thanks! DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the fact that I proposed the projects be re-merged, I also don't understand. I am a member of NYSR, and not USRD, so I have every right in the world to propose such an action. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only you have actually edited New York Roads, and are a member of this WikiProject. Most of the other people here are not at all involved with New York State Routes, and are simply here to try and force a productive project to re-merge. I would suggest that a proper way to go about this is to limit the debate to only NYSR members, let both you and people on the opposing side have their say, and THEN have a vote. The voting should not happen before the debate, however. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most people who voted (including me) have edited New York road articles. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing you before. --NE2 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do mostly quiet copyediting and don't see the need to get involved much with debates. I've worked on five or six, and the big List of New York state routes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, nearly everybody on the above poll has edited at least a few New York articles. Also, the poll was to attempt to end a long and tedious discussion at WT:USRD, so indeed, we and the other side have said what we want to say. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you throw out the non NYSR members, Fwgobel is a NYSR editor and JC is an NYSR editor. Still 2-0. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm told that Smb009 is a NY editor as well... so it is still 3-0. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

And even barring that, some of the rest of us have contributed to NYSR a fair amount. Not speaking for others directly, I have contributed by reviewing articles and commenting on them at GAN, ACR and FAC. I've given general feedback on IRC to articles, and even just directly gone and made some copy editing where I felt warranted. Wikiprojects are places of collaboration for all of Wikipedia, not just "project members". In effect the attitude I see above is worse than any "walled garden" approach out there. To sum up my opinion on the matter, NYSR is an integral part of the greater USRD family. They're wanted in that family, or editors who live in and primarily edit for the other states would not have come here expressing opinions. In fact the only editor I see in the straw poll expressing an oppose vote is one from California with a less than stellar editing record with WP under any of his previous account names. I figure I have just as much right to express an opinion here, even though I live in Michigan. In fact, I know at least one of the major contributors to NYSR isn't from NY, so even geography isn't a controlling factor. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Of standards and wikiprojects...

Let me pose this question: "What standards under the USRD project conflict with the MOS or what NYSR is trying to achieve in article writing?" I see nothing that's very different between the standards listed at WP:USRD/STDS and WP:NYSR. Maybe that's because no one's proposed any changes yet, but the USRD page specifically states that the MOS overrides the USRD specs when the two are in conflict. It further states that if there is a conflict to mention it so the conflict can be resolved.

The first real discussion of this nature started over a FAC on an article from New York. There were supposedly conflicting sections of the MOS, and this conflict has since been resolved. In other words, MOSFLAG's participants affirmed that the rest of the MOS doesn't prevent ELG from specifying/requiring shield graphics. Now ELG is a part of the MOS, so NYSR can't unilaterally avoid its requirements, so it must be some other conflict over standards. That leaves me very curious what the "conflicting" standards are. The standards are quite flexible. For instance, M-22 (Michigan highway), a GA, has a "Cultural references" section, which is not specified at USRD or WP:MSHP pages, but yet it is still valid part of the article that doesn't violate the MOS, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS. So yes as Polaron has stated, there is wiggle room in many of the project's standards. If nothing else, WP:IAR would apply if necessary.

In other discussions in other venues, one other issue concerning the forking I've heard is a desire for separate project tags. I'm curious why this is now an issue since the project tags were merged in August, 2007. I wasn't actively editing much at the time of that discussion, but it seems like a petty reason to fork a project over a project banner that could be redesigned if needed.

Now a project member or two states that there's a "really important and final decision" made concerning the status of a relationship. Another project member has objected and started a straw poll to clarify or even reverse this decision. As a result of an arbcom decision, consensus can only be evaluated on-wiki not off. In other words, when NYSR can point me to a discussion resulting in a consensus to fork from the parent project that was held on-wiki, it doesn't exist. A project member has started a straw poll and discussions concerning the situation, and other interested parties have replied. Nowhere else on-wiki have I ever seen a limitation to a specific project's declared participants before. Even if such a restriction were attempted, I could simply add my name to the participant's list for this project and gain suffrage instantly. I've edited articles and reviewed articles tagged by this project before, so that can't be used as a criteria either. Many of the other voters in the straw poll fall under the same situation as myself rendering the argument over suffrage very moot.

There's been a complaint about USRD not allowing NY-related requests at its task forces. Well, guess what, we don't allow UKRD to post their articles at WP:USRD/ACR nor do we entertain requests for maps or shields for them. If NYSR is really separate from USRD, there's nothing wrong from limiting our resources to the articles that are tagged by the project. Like it or not, consensus is that the USRD services are a benefit of being a part of the USRD family. If you want the benefits, you get the responsibility to contribute back at these forums as well. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

So. I guess this brings me to my final question... how can this project not be a logical child of USRD. By a literal definition, a project called U.S. Roads should logically be about roads in the US. (I'll side step the streets/roads debate since US Highways is taken by the subproject devoted to US Numbered Highways leaving the name issue we have.) Last time I checked, New York is in the US. Therefore it is logical that articles supported and edited by NYSR are also supported and edited by USRD. It is only a arbitrary severance of project relationships that's forced these articles out from under USRD tagging. So it's only logical, as Mr. Spock woiuld say, to un-fork the projects and mend the relationship. I have the steel ready, who's willing to rebuild the bridge? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)