Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New County Categories

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tonight I just created three categories for Transportation in Putnam County, New York, Dutchess County, New York, and Niagara County, New York, and like the others they're not just for roads. The exception to this is a category for Niagara County Roads. Whatever I'm missing, feel free to add these categories to the appropriate articles. ----DanTD (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR → USRD?

Latest comment: 15 years ago38 comments18 people in discussion

It's time to seriously discuss what just happened. It is as if one day, one user woke up, and decided out of the blue that he was going to split NYSR from USRD, and so he did. Granted, it was way orer-dramatized. It was nothing more than taking the project's name off of WP:USRD and getting a new project tag. There was no change in standards, no change in participants, and none of the predicted increase in activity. All the forking has done is cause problems. First, NYSR has lost access to all of USRD's services; MTF, ACR, and shields. There is an ongoing massive and dramatic fight on WT:USRD. And yet, we have gained nothing from the split. As such, I am proposing the two projects be merged. NYSR is, and will still be its own project, but under the supervision and standards of USRD. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I second JulianColton's proposal. Despite disagreements with certain WP:USRD editors, I think your project is better served by the resources that USRD has to offer. Here's hoping that your project will be back within the USRD ranks soon. DanTheMan474 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we start rebuilding the burned George Washington Bridge? --NE2 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll bring some structural steel for the rebuilding... Seriously, NYSR is wanted in the USRD family, and this rift can be mended. Please comment further. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been very inactive due to being very busy with both employment and non-employment activities and simply check my watchlist every day or so, little more. My inactivity has nothing to do with this change, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't be under USRD. Fwgoebel (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the straw poll below is that WP:NYSR should go back under WP:USRD. I saw a request at WP:AN for an admin to close this debate, so I have done so. I have no insight as to the practical steps needed to carry this out, and I hope the editors here will know what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The discussion on WT:USRD and here is getting nowhere. Right now the best thing to do is have a straw poll, then we decide if we want to move NYSR back under USRD. Just sign with your signature, otherwise I'm sure we'll start arguing...

Support

– Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
– DanTheMan474 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
– — master son^{T - C} 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Rschen7754 (T C) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
--NE2 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
–Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
--Admrboltz (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
– Fwgoebel (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Smb6009 (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Must eat worms (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Mitch32^(UP) 10:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)\
C L — 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Still oppose, things need to happen - and people don't seem to get the idea that if you don't "own" NYSR in retrospect, what rights do you have? On the AN thread only 1 person even supported you guys. I am tired of the constant bullying over this, accusing me of things, and I may have better chances vandalizing than dealing with USRD. Shoemaker makes a valid point below, even though not officially a member of the project, he is interested in helping with it at points. I don't care what the hell you guys will think of me after this, but I want NYSR to stay out so it gets its own valid standards, and not the cruddy ones we currently have. So fight me if you want, I'm not gonna support this merge.Mitch32^(UP) 10:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)\

Addendum: "These standards are not set in stone, however, and can be ignored if the particular highway warrants it." -- This seems to be what everyone is not getting - if its not set in stone, why do you make me follow it?Mitch32^(UP) 11:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam - We will work these issues out with you. Don't worry about that. Let's get everything and everyone back on the same page, meaning NYSR is in USRD (it never really left), and we will seek compromise. DanTheMan474 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Just sign with your signature"... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitch: I still don't quite get which particular aspects of the USRD guidelines you really don't like to the point of splitting off the NYSR project. From what I have seen of other US road articles, there is a lot of wiggle room for a subproject to customize these guidelines to a state or even to a specific article. Which particular standards are you referring to? --Polaron | Talk 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The rest of NYSR has voted against you. At this point it really doesn't matter what you want - you do not own NYSR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not, in fact, appear to be true. Only two people who voted above are actually members of the project. I'm not sure the rest should be considered to have suffrage in this poll. Why not wait for the rest of the people actually signed up to the project to vote? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

... apparently they are inactive or apathetic to the matter. We don't do this at the rest of Wikipedia... --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but if a project actively bullies its most productive writer of FAs by sying they refuse to uphold the standard manual of style in favour of their own, and that, should he propose any articles that use the standard manual of style for FA that they will actively tear him down, and then this project tries to actively force him back into the fold by acting like border ruffians creating a new Bleeding Kansas, then it's hard to see this whole poll as anything but a violation of WP:HARASS on the part of an entire WikiProject. I don't think, by any means, that this applies to everyone who voted in it, of course. But there are severe problems with the way this entire situation is being treated by USSR.

Notable examples of this harassment include telling the main victim of USSR's harassment that he should shut up and accept it; Using the USSR's temper-tantrumish withdrawal of mapmaking and other benefits from NYSR as one of the reasiosn they should be remerged, and not to mention the ANI thread trying to get people sanctioned for daring to leave your abusive relationship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to respond to such an off-base accusation. Either WP:AGF, or keep on dreaming. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's implying that USRD and NYSR should revolve around Mitchazenia, because he's his Skype buddy? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. But if that's his distorted view of the situation, then there's no point to trying to convince him otherwise, since all our actions and words will be twisted to make us the bad guys. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what the issue with the USRD guidelines is? I hear snippets every so often but I don't really see where USRD's guidelines are against the MOS. I agree this poll is pointless but so is the forking. What did it accomplish in practice? I didn't see any changes to the article structures after it did. Can anyone shed light on what the underlying reason for all this is? --Polaron | Talk 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, leave the Soviet Union out of this. The Russians never did anything to harm WP:NYSR. :-P - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking just at this page, I see more evidence of harassment. When Mitch dares to speak up, you promptly add a comment clearly directed at him, basically telling him to shut up. [1] and then explicitly do tell him to shut up [2]. You then edit his comment to remove the material you dislike to its own section. [3]. When I stand up for him, you attack me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody, by looking at the diffs and the instructions at the top of the poll, can see that your accusations are off base. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoe, if you've come here to start a fight, I'm going to ask you to leave. If you have an opinion about the merging without bringing personal attacks into play, you're welcome to help come to a consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

/me goes to get a free lunch. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image needs replacement - Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Fdrnight10.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1910 map

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This map shows in solid red "State Roads (and connections through cities)", in other words roads maintained by the state outside cities. --NE2 11:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image standard?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If people have been following my contributions, one of my favorite things to do is take pictures for various routes in New York or wherever for that matter. I have a few concerns. I like to browse images just to see whats out there, and some of the stuff I don't like. For example, we have used a lot of images from Doug Kerr's State-Ends.com. Many of those images are blurry, at night, through a windshield, poorly framed, etc. I think we should use our own collected images, and hold ourselves to a higher standard when posting images. I find State-Ends fascinating, but most of their images blow. I recently drove to Albany along US 9, taking pictures along the way. I threw a bunch out because I was frankly embarrassed to post them. I think we should make a real effort to get out of our cars wherever possible. Use common sense obviously, and I know there are simply places you can't get out. I also know some images through the windshield come out well, but use your best judgment when deciding to post one. This is merely an attempt to help clean up some of our images. This also isn't an address on what kinds of pictures to take. No one should go after someones creativity on what pictures to take and what not to take. What does everyone think? --Airtuna08 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 931F

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability Dough4872 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Dough4872 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles with deprecated communities list and no route description

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As the title implies, this is a list of articles that have the long-deprecated communities list or the even-older "communities along the route" section but have no route description to merge the list into. You can help by writing a route description for these articles and integrating the communities list into the description. Thanks in advance.

– T M F 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles with a partial route description

New York State Route 27 - it covers the entire route, but not in enough detail to move most of the links in
New York State Route 41A - it covers the entire route, but not in enough detail to move most of the links in
New York State Route 51
New York State Route 90
New York State Route 281

– T M F 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Round Lake Bypass

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is it time for an article? The highway, to be maintained by the state, should be complete in June or July. I have some pictures I believe and if someone could read the state law which seems to imply the RL Bypass:

9. Upon the completion and acceptance of the highway described as "beginning at a point on state highway nine thousand three hundred eighty-seven in the vicinity of the interchange with interstate route five hundred two (interstate route eighty-seven) thence generally northeasterly to or near the intersection of state highway six hundred ten and state highway one thousand seven hundred ninety-five", the commissioner is hereby authorized and directed to enter an official order of abandonment to the village of Round Lake of that portion of state highway nine thousand three hundred eighty-seven, and as included in an official order dated July twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred seventy from the above-described point as determined by the commissioner easterly to its intersection with state highway one thousand seven hundred ninety-five and upon the filing of certified copies of such official order with the county clerk, the county treasurer, the clerk of the board of supervisors, the county superintendent of highways, all of Saratoga county, and the state comptroller, the state shall cease to maintain such portion of state highway nine thousand three hundred eighty-seven and all rights and obligations of the state therein shall be turned over and surrendered to the village of Round Lake and such portion of said state highway shall thereafter be maintained by the village of Round Lake as a village road.

Anyway, shall we discuss what is going to happen here?3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 11:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So this bypass is barely a mile long? From my understanding, it has no signed designation so I don't see any reason why it deserves an article. It would have to have a significant backstory (several paragraphs, and with no fluff or filler) to be worthy of an article. – T M F 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Signed designation is a small mystery - we have a few things marking 915J, but not much. The RL Bypass is in the bridge inventory already.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 01:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean, the only designation that I've seen for this is a reference route designation, and reference routes are not inherently notable. – T M F 13:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Open merge proposals

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Several New York-related merge proposals are active; please comment on them. Thanks.

~~New York State Route 912Q → Interstate 87 (history overlaps)~~ closed as support
~~Interstate 587 → New York State Route 28 (routing and history overlap)~~ closed as uncontested proposed merge; defaulting to support

These were merged at one point, but then de-merged after considerable protest from out of state, on the notion that the higher ranking route (I-587) should have its own article and not be merged with that a state route. The merge works for me, however, since last year I fine-tuned the redirect to the appropriate section of NY 28. Fwgoebel (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...the logic of that one editor (the "considerable protest" was generated by a single puppeteer) is flawed on many levels. My take is that it doesn't matter who assigned the route, it's still a redundant designation no matter how anyone slices it. We should make all efforts to consolidate information where possible; that way, if new information comes to light, we only have to update it in one spot and not many. – T M F 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

~~New York State Route 17J → New York State Route 394 (routing and history overlap)~~ closed as support
~~New York State Route 18A → New York State Route 75 (history overlaps, routing mostly overlaps)~~ closed as support
~~French Portage Road → New York State Route 394 (historical roadway in the modern NY 394 corridor)~~ closed as support
~~New York State Route 931F → New York State Route 321 (history overlaps)~~ closed as support
~~Conduit Boulevard → New York State Route 27 (routing overlaps)~~ closed as oppose
~~Old Route 30 → New York State Route 30 (history overlaps)~~ closed as support

– T M F 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The links to the merge discussion sections, where you can leave comments supporting or opposing the merges:

– T M F 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Suffolk County stuff:

These four are merge candidates.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I've removed most of the proposals because they're not rhe same roads. You also shouldn't have merged County Route 80 (Suffolk County, New York) with the Suffolk County Road list. ----DanTD (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As for County Route 85 (Suffolk County, New York), like County Route 80 (Suffolk County, New York) they are different segments of Montauk Highway. Perhaps SCR 80 & 85 being merged into Montauk Highway would've been more acceptable, but your current proposals aren't. ----DanTD (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, they don't have to be the same road to be related. They are related by history, except for 48, which has the Truck 25 stuff. Also, CR 80 has no real notability.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 24 and Interstate 495 (New York) are related by history too, yet both of the articles are kept separate. The same should go for NY 111 and CR 17 as well as the others you want to merge. CR 48 and Truck 25 are shared routes, and CR 98 and Truck 27A are former shared routes. And you're wrong about CR 80. It's does have notability, because it's a segment of Montauk Highway. The same goes for CR 85. If you're going to merge those two with anything, you should merge them with Montauk Highway, not with NY 27A and the List of Suffolk County Roads respectivley. ----DanTD (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's state routes, if 24 & 25D were entirely 495, I would say merge. CR 17 was a part of 111 and can be covered there, simple as that. 48 and 98 are Truck Routes mostly, coverable in the parent highways. CR 85 is formerly a part of NY 27A, and can be described in the history.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 10:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CR 17 hasn't been part of NY 111 since 1966. Actually it never was part of NY 111, but simply replaced that segment of it. 48 isn't a truck route. It simply shares Truck Route 25 and not neccesarily all of it. 98 hasn't been a truck route since NYSDOT stopped it from going past Sunrise Highway in the early-1970's, and neither 85 nor 80 are part of NY 27A. However, they are part of Montauk Highway, just as NY 27A is between Massapequa and the Oakdale Merge, and NY 27 east of Flying Point. ----DanTD (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And proves that they can still be a part of another article. Other than NY 25 Truck, CR 48's only claim to notability is the NY 25A extension, its not another designation entirely. CR 80 and 85 can be covered in Mountauk easy as that. 98 was NY 27A Truck, which belongs in NY 27A as is.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, 48 was never part of 25A. Sound Avenue was though. And Truck NY 25 wasn't always a consistent route. It originally had one part around Laurel & Mattituck to go around a low railroad bridge, and one part around Greenport Village. That's why there's that segment on Moore's Lane. CR 48 also wasn't always 48 either. It used to be CR 27, and was renamed in order to avoid confusion with NY 27 on the South Fork. 98 may've been Truck 27A from 1960-1972, but not now. In addition, it was being planned by Brookhaven Township as far back as the 1930's. Perhaps I should make a scan of a map from back then and post it on Image Shack so you can check out the link. I'm glad you at least understand that 80 and 85 would be better off redirected toward Montuak Highway. I propose doing that and having separate chapters on both, but keeping NY 27A as it stands with wikilins between the two articles. But NY 111 and Suffolk CR 17 should be kept separate. ----DanTD (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions for Mitch

The sub-title explainst it all;

What exactly did you think gave you the precedent to redirect Suffolk CR 80? Because from where I stand you have about as much as I do to redirect anything else.
Just what is it about County Route 83 (Suffolk County, New York) that you think calls for a rewrite?

Just curious. ----DanTD (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York) from one month ago is part of it for precedent - and for 83 , the article is junk. Half the history is the RD, where it does not belong. Way overboard on bolding, shields don't usually go in the prose, there is little to no inline sourcing, the RD needs to be rewritten to standards.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 10:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You may have some valid arguments about CR 83(the keyword being some), but you are dead wrong about the notability of CR 80. ----DanTD (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 9, 2009 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, congratulations. Kinda interesting that June just happened to be the month that NY 311 was picked to be the NYSR SA (and this selection was made back in April). Who knows, maybe it'll lead to more interest in the project if they visit NY 311's talk page and see the selected article banner. – T M F 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

County route articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion

On the heels of the heated discussion above over county route articles, I have personally gone through and examined every standalone New York county route article in existence, looking primarily for notability and, if present, what the exact notability of the route is given as. The reason notability is key for county routes is that intracounty routes have no inherent notability (as discussed on WP:USRD/NT). County route articles that do not clearly establish the notability of the highway have historically been redirected or outright deleted at WP:AFD. Another item I considered while looking at every article is whether or not it would be beneficial to cover the information contained in the article elsewhere to eliminate unnecessary duplication between articles. The reasons behind eliminating duplication are two-fold: one, to help reduce the amount of content the project has to maintain and two, if new information comes to light, it will only need to be updated in one location rather than in many locations. With all of that said, here are my findings, and my suggestions are located below them:

Routes with no claim of notability

~~Erie CR 1~~
Onondaga CR 236
Rockland CR 72, 74, 97
Suffolk CR 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 43, 50, 51, 55, 58, 63, 83, 93, 99, 100
~~Sullivan CR 166A~~
Warren CR 7, 11, 17, 34, 35, 38, 42, 58, 71, 78

Routes whose notability is wholly or partially derived from a previous or current state highway designation (mainline or special)

~~Dutchess CR 81~~
Orange CR 106, 107
Rockland CR 106
Suffolk CR 17, 48, 94, 98
Sullivan CR 166, 174
~~Warren CR 64~~
~~Wayne CR 101~~

Routes whose notability is derived from a larger, unnumbered highway

Onondaga CR 41
Suffolk CR 36, 80, 85

Routes whose notability is derived from another entity

Sullivan CR 168

Routes with established notability, but unreferenced

Suffolk CR 46, 111

Routes that are identical to a former state highway designation

Erie CR 574 (NY 422)
Suffolk CR 104 (NY 113)
Sullivan CR 149 (NY 284)

Any county route articles that existed as of May 22 (when I compiled this list) but are not listed above have (IMO) a sufficient claim of notability and are indeed notable.

Discussion

My suggestions are as follows, by county:

Dutchess: CR 81 is a former alignment of NY 22 and should be covered in the latter's article. The entirety of CR 81's history is redundant to the history of NY 22.
Erie: CR 1 is nothing more than a connector highway and should be redirected to the county's route list. The routing of CR 574 is identical to the one NY 422 had and the option of renaming the article to the more notable entity's name should be explored.
Onondaga: CR 41 is part of the New Seneca Turnpike and, according to its article, was part of NY 175 when it was first assigned. It should be covered in either NY 175 or in an article on the New Seneca Turnpike. As for CR 236, it doesn't appear to be anything more than a short rural highway.
Orange: The histories on Orange and Rockland CRs 106 overlap heavily. I would suggest merging to NY 210, but then a significant amount of route description would be lost. As a concession, I would like to at least see these two articles merged together. CR 107's lone claim to fame is that it was part of NY 307, which redirects to CR 9. Right now, the history of NY 307 is split between CR 107 and CR 9, and this should never happen. I suggest merging CR 107 to CR 9 and covering it there.
Rockland: I fail to see how any of the three I listed above are significant enough to warrant an article. CR 97 is the most egregious of the three: it is both insignificant (one mile long) and contradictory ("CR 97 is the most hidden Rockland County Route as there are no indictations that it exists", the article reads; however, there are two pictures in the article that show posted shields for the highway). All should be merged to the county route list.
Suffolk: Broken down by section because of how many that exist.
- All but one of the articles listed in the first section above make no claim of notability, and CR 50's only claim to fame are locally proposed extensions, which I don't believe helps establish notability. All should be redirected to the county route list.
- CR 17 is a former alignment of NY 111. They follow parallel routings about three-quarters of a mile apart and intersect the same highways. Since CR 17 has no history other than that relating to NY 111, I see no reason why it can't be adequately covered in the state highway article. CR 48, from what I've seen and read, is entirely overlapped by NY 25 Truck. This proposed merge, which has been brought up above, has been contentious, and I can't understand why. I understand that not all of NY 25 Truck is CR 48, but the reverse, again from what I've seen and read, is true. That's why CR 48 can easily be covered in NY 25 in a section devoted to NY 25 Truck. CR 94 appears to be little more than a designation for a county-maintained portion of NY 24. However, I'm reading through it, and apparently there was to be an extension of it to Wading River. Would this have been co-signed as NY 24 had it been built? If it would have, I would fully support merging CR 94 to NY 24; if not, I can accept keeping CR 94 separate, but the article needs a partial rewrite if that happens. CR 98 and NY 27A Truck were one and same, and NY 27A Truck is already covered in NY 27A. I see this has been tagged for a merge already, and I endorse that proposal. CR 104 is basically the same deal with CR 574 in Erie County - except for a couple of minor alterations, it's identical to the old NY 113.
- CR 36 is a former alignment of Montauk Highway, and today is really nothing more than an alternate route of it that loops south to serve Bellport. The first part of its history is redundant to Montauk Highway and the second part is irrelevant filler. CR 80 and CR 85 are both part of the current routing of Montauk Highway. All three, thus, should be merged to Montauk Highway.
Sullivan: CR 149 is the same deal as Erie CR 574 and Suffolk CR 104. CR 166A is a nothing more than a connector road, and CRs 166 and 174's notability is derived from NY 17. Now, I'm not suggesting merging either of those two; if we tried to cover all of the former alignments in NY 17's article, we'd be compiling the info for years. Instead, they should be sent to the county route list along with CR 166A. As an aside, I don't believe CR 166 was NY 17; a 1940s topo of the area shows 17 on CR 172. CR 168 isn't really notable and should be merged into the article on the park it serves if and when it is created.
Warren: None of the routes in this county except CR 64 make any kind of notability claim. Most of the histories talk about origins of road names, which does absolutely nothing to explain how the highway is relevant. All should be redirected to the county route list. Now, on the topic of CR 64, what's in the article is pretty messed up, to put it bluntly. CR 64 did not encompass all of NY 9M - it also continued north on CR 62 to US 9 and south for a short (negligible) distance on CR 30 to CR 53. The map is blatantly wrong: NY 9M never went south of the aforementioned junction between CR 30 and CR 53 as at the time NY 8 was routed on modern CR 53 and was routed as such for a while after NY 9M ceased to exist. CR 64 should be moved to NY 9M and rewritten to eliminate these factual inaccuracies.
Wayne: CR 101 exists solely on the claim that all of Lake Road was once part of NY 18. I have seen only two sources that back up this claim: Mark Sinsabaugh's New York Routes site and a 1940s USGS 1:250,000 scale topo, neither of which are particularly reliable (the first is a WP:SPS which has a fair amount of inaccurate content and the second labeled many "B" suffixed routes as ending in "8" instead, including 33B). Meanwhile, all, and I mean all of my commercial maps indicate that NY 18 never went any farther east than NY 250 in Webster. In my view, only two things can be done with this article: rename it to Lake Road (Western New York) and refocus it to cover all of Lake Road between the Irondequoit Bay Outlet Bridge and Sodus Point, or send it to AFD. CR 101 itself is not notable. – T M F 04:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at all the specifics, but in general you seem spot-on. One possibility for the old alignments of NY 17 would be to create an article about old NY 17 in general. Once I-86 is complete, maybe the logistics will be easier. --NE2 04:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will go on record by saying that a highway needs to establish its notability to be on Wikipedia. Being a county road by itself does not count as notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I will also say that creating these articles on non-notable routes just to get GAs is academically dishonest. We should be working on articles that are actually good; the quality of the article is way more important than the classification. There have been plenty of warnings regarding the notability of such articles and of the possibility of them being merged; I firmly believe that it is time to enforce past consensus decisions regarding such routes and to get rid of these nonnotable articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse everything that's been said here. While I appreciate the effort that's gone into some of these articles, we have to draw the line the somewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Suffolk County Roads that you've listed as being non-notable, are in fact major highways, even if they're county roads. Suffolk CR 50 has more to it than just it's proposed extensions. It's a major commuter route. Suffolk CR 48 is wrong for merging, because it's not the same route as NY Truck 25, which was simply relocated onto the rest of it, and spreads beyond it. Suffolk CR 94 shouldn't be merged because it's also a shared route, which also contains a suffixed route, and a proposed spur towards Wading River that NY 24 does not have. The extenstion had nothing to do with NY 24. Suffolk CR 98 is Suffolk CR 98 alone, and Truck 27A was layed across it until NYSDOT cut 27A back to what is today the Oakdale Merge in 1972. But it hasn't been a truck route since then. Suffolk CR's 80 & 85 should be merged with Montauk Highway, but 36 should be left alone. In fact, contrary to your list, CR 17 is in the same position as Suffolk 36, 55 has been part of Montauk Highway, NY 27A, and NY 27 in the past, 51 & 83 are as major as 46 and 111, 100 was supposed to be part of NY 24(along with unbilt 90 and partially built 105), I can't say too much about 9 and 10, although I've heard vague rumours of 99 being somehow connected to the formerly proposed Southern State Parkway extension. I don't see much of a case for merging the Orange and Rockland County Route 106 articles with NY 210(thanks to the separation by NY 17A), but I can see a good reason for merging them with one another. As for the notion that Suffolk CRs 46 and 111 are unreferenced, that's complete BS. ----DanTD (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If they're truly "major", which is a subjective term, then it shouldn't be difficult to establish their notability in their articles. If the article doesn't explicitly establish why the road is notable, then for Wikipedia purposes, it isn't. Please see WP:USRD/NT and WP:N. Now as for rejecting the merges involving former highways or alignments, would the highways be notable if they were not once part of those routes? If they would be, and if this notability can be clearly defined in their articles, then a case can be made for leaving the article as-is. Until then, the arguments against the merge are baseless. As for the last statement, I understand that there are listed references, but it is impossible to determine what statements are referenced to which source unless they are referenced with inline citations. CR 111 is wholly devoid of inline citations, and I count seven sections on CR 46 that have no inline citations. In my view, and in the view of the assessment scale (including the review processes), these articles are unreferenced due to the lack of inline citations. – T M F 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you knew about the roads in comparison to a lot of the state routes on Long Island, you'd understand why they're major. You'd understand why article about CRs 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 31, 36, 46, 48, 50, 51, 55, 58, 80, 83, 85, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, and 111 are worth covering, and why most of the others that haven't been covered aren't. A lot of them are as good, if not better than the nearest state routes. They're not puny dirt or gravel roads, just because they're not maintained by the state, as you have in many rural counties in Florida. If being former state highways were the only criteria for leaving them in tact, then 17, 36, 80, 85, and 104 should be left alone. As far an the alleged lack of inline citations are concerned, I have added them when I can find them, but I think too many administrators and bureaucrats have been overlooking them. ----DanTD (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people that read and visit Wikipedia are not from Long Island, so your rationale really isn't valid. You still haven't presented any explicit reasons as to why they're notable to anyone not from or familiar with Long Island. And I think you misinterpreted my comments above; if a county road was the entire routing of a former state highway (such as CR 104) it is notable, but this is not the only criteria for notability for former parts or alignments of a state highway. The only thing that guarantees is a mention in the state highway article's history. – T M F 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's something you may not get about some of these roads; County Route 83 (Suffolk County, New York) is the same kind of highway that County Route 46 (Suffolk County, New York), and County Route 97 (Suffolk County, New York), are. So are County Roads 48, 99, 101, 105, and 111. These are unfinished highways that had the potential to be upgraded as expressways. Suffolk CR 94 even had Rest Areas at one time. The others I've mentioned could be easily mistaken for NYS Routes by those who don't know any better, and have been. If you want to claim lack of notablility, I've casually mentioned New York State Route 112 in various conversations down here in Florida, and the only people who know what I'm talking about are fellow ex-Long Islanders. It appears that you're bringing WikiProject:Roads to the point where nothing is notable. ----DanTD (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting somewhere. However, if all they're notable for are cancelled extensions and upgrades, wouldn't they be better off covered in the Suffolk County proposed road article that exists? – T M F 05:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody was making the same arguments for merging County Route 46 (Suffolk County, New York) County Route 97 (Suffolk County, New York), or County Route 111 (Suffolk County, New York), so I don't see any reason for merging 48, 83, 94, 99, 101, or 105. And with the exception of CR 48, all these roads have interchanges. 48 had the chance to become part of the LIE, and if NYSDOT suddenly decided to go back to the old Robert Moses-style policies of road construction(as one can only hope), then I could see a good reason to merge that article into the LIE. Besides that since larger portions of the other roads were already built, they could stand as is. Aside from potential new interchanges, the only segments of 46 that weren't built are the ones that were supposed to go north of NY 25A. The oringial plan for 83 was to have other interchanges besides the one at Bicycle Path for Bald Hill Ski Bowl, and the only other unbuilt portions are the ones that were planned north of NY 25A and south of NY 27. CR 99 had other never-built interchanges, and two unbuilt portions, but both of those combined were shorted than the rest of the road. 101 had a few proposed interchanges, and an extension that was still shorter than the rest of the existing road. 105 had that extension west of 104(former NY 113), and also future interchanges. ----DanTD (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you think you know better than anyone else on Wikipedia, maybe you should list which of the non-notable Suffolk County routes have cases for remaining. This discussion is going nowhere fast. – T M F 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I already mentioned CR's 9 and 10, and I was originally willing to let 14 go, but then I realized there's still a connection to the Jericho Turnpike Spur of Long Island Motor Parkway. 80 and 85, I'm perfectly willing to see redirected to Montauk Highway, but 36 should be left alone. ----DanTD (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing stubby articles like Suffolk CR's 9, 10, and 43, I'm perfectly willing to consider the Rockland County approach. In other words, having single articles that carry descriptions of all the roads in their own chapters, with links to bigger ones, like most of those I'm trying to save. I was thinking about this for a while, but now the need seems a little more desperate. There's another road article, Suffolk Traction Boulevard(a.k.a. "Traction Boulevard") that I'm actually thinking about converting into a new article called Suffolk Traction Company and adding it strictly to WikiProjects:Streetcars. All I need is more information on the subject. ----DanTD (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a fair compromise. I'm all for it. – T M F 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, the lack of inline citations isn't alleged; it's a fact. – T M F 05:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Show mw where. ----DanTD (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I already did above. "CR 111 is wholly devoid of inline citations, and I count seven sections on CR 46 that have no inline citations." If you're seriously going to contest either point, we have greater issues at work here than if a county highway is notable. – T M F 05:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All you did was say that they're devoid of inline citations, and nothing else. Excuse me for wanting to be specific on what's right and what's wrong with these articles. ----DanTD (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, that pretty much describes those two articles. I don't see what more needs to be said. – T M F 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any county other than Suffolk

Since this whole effort is going to be derailed if the above "discussion" (which is rapidly degrading) continues, I'll open up a separate section down here for any county listed above other than Suffolk. – T M F 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. As I stated earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing Orange and Rockland CR's 106 merged into a single article, and not as part of NY 210. ----DanTD (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of non-Suffolk County Roads, I've got to ask about one you redirected. It's not a county road, but rather it's Old Route 30. Was there any reason you never considered passing it along to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking Trails? Not that I'm criticizing the current New York State Route 30 article as it stands, but I just want to know if you gave my suggestion any thought. ----DanTD (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I evaluated the article and saw that a good three-quarters of the article related to NY 30 and its history. Once everything related to NY 30 was stripped out and added to NY 30 itself, there wasn't anything left so I didn't give the option of retaining the article much consideration. – T M F 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wayne CR 101 has been moved to Lake Road (Western New York) and rewritten to match the name change. Lake Road is not locally known as County Route 101; it is known as "Lake Road". Plus, the entirety of Lake Road, 29 miles long, is notable by itself in a way: the Outlet Bridge-NY 250 portion was once NY 18, and the Bay Road-Sodus Point portion is part of the Seaway Trail, a National Scenic Byway. – T M F 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Warren CR 64 moved to New York State Route 9M and rewritten as detailed above. – T M F 08:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the histories of the former articles. Why is that? ----DanTD (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this comment. The page histories of both Wayne CR 101 and Warren CR 64 are both fully present in the page histories of Lake Road and NY 9M, respectively. – T M F 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the "What Links Here" section of NY 9M, and looked at County Route 64 (Warren County, New York), and I saw no history. The same goes with Wayne CR 101. ----DanTD (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the page was properly moved using the move tab, there shouldn't be any history at the redirects... If there was history at either of them, it'd be considered a copy/paste move, which is a violation of the site's licensing terms. – T M F 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Erie CR 1 was merged to the county route list and Onondaga CR 236 has been sent to AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York). – T M F 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sullivan CR 166A and Dutchess CR 81 merged. – T M F 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A smorgasbord of topics

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Here's a series of items on my mind:

The county routes discussion above: Due to other issues and my faulty internet, I had to temporarily table the elimination of non-notable county routes. However, the issues have been resolved and my internet has been fixed, so I fully intend to revisit this issue beginning tomorrow.
Inactivity check: Also beginning tomorrow, I will be conducting an inactivity check of our project members. This will likely be in the form of a post on the talk pages of those who are listed as participants of the project. All details on what will need to be done to stay "active" will be included in the "spammed" message.
These last few items below likely need a bit more discussion. – T M F 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We currently have three glaringly sub-standard lists: the state route list, the former state route list, and the list of Interstate Highways in New York. The first is heavily cluttered; it has pictures for at least half the routes on the page, which is both unorthodox and unnecessary. It also adds unnecessary size to the page in terms of the extra code that is needed to add the pictures to the page, and slows down the rendering of the page because users have to load every image on the page. The list is big enough; we don't need anything extra. That's why we never attempted to put shields on the page. Users have told me that their computer has frozen and/or their browser has crashed trying to load the list. For me, the list loads but is sluggish. This makes the list unusable to a portion of our readership, which is frankly embarrassing. I propose that all pictures be removed from the table and moved to the individual route articles. – T M F 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The second is the former state route list. The need for it is currently unclear; there's no difference between the way it covers former routes and how the main list does. Now, if the former route list is redone to state more details about the former routes, perhaps we could move the former routes to that list and restrict the main list to active routes. But as of right now, the former route list is redundant. – T M F 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The third item is the Interstate Highway list. It's not as bad as either of the first two, but it does omit any coverage of former Interstate Highways in New York, which is something that should not be done. Our coverage doesn't stop at active routes. IMO the list needs to be pruned a bit too (necessity of shields? descriptions vs. just termini?). – T M F 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Over the next few years, NYSDOT will be collecting traffic data on all federal aid eligibe routes, which will include many county and local roads. As these data are placed on the Traffic Data Viewer site([4]), they could be one of the criteria used to determine whether a non-state route is notable.

What makes a non-state road notable? An example near me is CR 151 (Albany Shaker Rd.). It leads lead to the first permanent Shaker settlement. It now connects the City of Albany and Interstate 87 to Albany International Airport, the County Jail, and the County Hockey Facility. Depending on the location, it carries 15,000 - 30,000 vehicles per day. Sounds notable to me. On the other hand, CR 13 goes nowhere special unless you live there, and carries >100 vpd. Not so notable.--Triskele Jim (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of county roads has been discussed at length at WT:USRD and at WT:USRD/NT, particularly in the archives of both locations. The results of the relevant discussions is reflected in the "guidelines" at WP:USRD/NT, which I am using as a guide to determine which routes are notable and which are not. Some examples of what could make a county route notable are given there. – T M F 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with using traffic counts is that they're obviously going to be higher in more populated areas. A better starting point might be functional classification. --NE2 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:NYSR inactivity check
I'm currently on vacation, so I'm not as active on Wikipedia in general, let alone Project New York Roads. I should be resuming regular activity, and previous activities in July 2009. ----DanTD (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a new task force for roads in New York here. – T M F 03:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the scope

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Continuing on from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Proposal: new task force for roads in New_York, I formally propose to this project that it expands its scope to include ALL roads in the New York State. As I'm an outsider, obviously I'll leave the wording to you guys, but it seems like the logical next step in the expansion of this project. Go forth and discuss :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when this expanded project agrees to limit stand-alone articles to a certain class of articles? I would definitely support expansion to include all roads as long as the project guidelines are respected by those outside the project. --Polaron | Talk 17:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You know that's not going to happen, whether with non-notable county routes or reference routes. What really needs to be done is agreement among project participants that a certain level of of detail is too much - and it's easier to do that when the article's actually in the project. Then, with the excessive detail stripped out, maybe it will be easier to merge or redirect. --NE2 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat indifferent to the idea, but if the change is supported by the project as a whole and not just by a certain pushy user with a three-digit alphanumeric user name, I am willing to go along with it. If the change is made, the project would 1) clearly have to be renamed and 2) have to be reformatted to handle the other stuff. The guidelines, standards, et al are clearly written from the state route point of view. As an aside though, I have no idea who within the project would have any interest in working on these "new" roads; I definitely won't be as I couldn't care less about anything that's not at least a state route or has some historical connection to one. Perhaps the level of interest of editors on working on these roads should be the barometer as to whether or not to include them. My $.02. – T M F 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; it's already what's de facto tagged as part of the project. --NE2 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Only because you decided to tag them. – T M F 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Becoming a Task Force of Wikiproject New York

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

At the same time as expanding the scope, I wonder if it could also be considered that the WikiProject become a Task Force of WikiProject New York. This would have little/no direct on the functioning of wp:NYSR, which would continue to have its own Talk page and project page (just perhaps relabelled as a Task force and describing a relationship to the statewide wikiproject), would continue to get its own reporting of tallies of articles by importance and quality class ratings, and so on. The benefit would be largely to the state-wide "parent" wikiproject, which has never been very successful on its own and was in fact formed after WikiProject New York City and perhaps NYSR and other natural "child" wikiprojects. And to other current and future "child" type Task Forces of wikiproject New York. In logistical terms, I believe the main task would be to run a bot to replace the wp:NYSR banner on article Talk pages by a revised banner that identifies the articles as part of the NYSR Task force within wp:NY. A small benefit is that Talk pages would be less cluttered, having just one one banner for what may have been 2 wikiproject banners on the same page, in the past.

I believe wp:NYSR is by far the most active and successful NYS wikiproject (except perhaps wp:NYC which i don't know much about). Other regional child wikiprojects including wp:SYR, of which I am a member, have had inadequate quorums to hold decent discussions and have been unsatisfactory traps for new members occasionally coming by. The Syracuse one should have been framed as Central New York to capture a broader potential membership, in my view. Not too long ago I opposed creation of wp:capdis which has been somewhat more successful, perhaps, and to which i have contributed and am an "honorary" member. Occasionally there are proposals to create wikiprojects for incredibly small topics within NYS, such as for University of Rochester only. I still think that the Albany/Capital District one, the Long Island one, and other potential big regional wikiprojects (North Country, Western New York, Southern Tier), should all best be created as Task Forces within wp:NY and sharing common elements such as assessment systems, a central discussion area (although each Task Force would also have its own).

The successful model is wp:MILHIST which has numerous Task Forces. Membership and work of its Task Forces is equally prestigious, and there are benefits to each of its Task Forces from the common support and easy interaction with other task force projects there. Guidelines for design of Task forces are discussed at wp:TASKFORCE.

I believe it would help wp:NY to have a successful, active NYSR Task Force, and it would make it easier then to organize other regional Task Forces within the state. Would members here be willing to revamp NYSR in this way? I am prompted to propose this now because of the proposed change in scope of NYSR. If the scope decision is to expand, then the changes relating to that could efficiently be implemented together with changing into a Task Force as well. doncram (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the issues here is that NYSR doesn't have its own talk page banner; it was combined into the USRD one (along with every other subproject and state) a long time ago. So, if this was downgraded to a task force (which is how I see it regardless of how it's presented; it would still be a subpage of something) that would result in two banners anyway - one for USRD to tag it on the roads side, and one for NY to tag it in that scope. – T M F 11:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad idea because these articles are more road articles than New York articles. They follow USRD formatting, not NY formatting. Therefore, subjecting NYSR to being a task force of WP:NY will compromise the NYSR project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a surprising logical leap. How will it be compromised? Powers ^T 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a silly thing to say, all WikiProjects should be heading towards the same goal. Sounds like another case of USRD thinking its better than everyone else. Remember that WikiProjects (even USRD) don't own articles, and as an aside, there is no reason why WP:NY couldn't set up their own roads related task force anyway. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NY will have the powers to change the structure of NYSR so that it does not have to follow the structure of USRD. Also, NYSR is more of a roads project than a New York project, so the rationale for this does not exist. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"WP:NY will have the powers to change the structure of NYSR so that it does not have to follow the structure of USRD." - Again, I'm sure I shouldn't need to keep reminding you that WikiProject's don't own articles, never have, and never will. I'm sure as an administrator you should be fully aware of that. I could change a structure of an article if I wanted too, nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines say that articles must adhere to the suggested practices set out by power mad WikiProjects. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the expanded scope proposed for NYSR would bring it out of USRD, which i vaguely understand is about certain U.S. and/or state routes only, not all notable roads. If NYSR does not change its scope to cover all New York State Roads, or if it is otherwise acceptable for it to stay within USRD, then the Task Force would be a joint task force of two parent wikiprojects. The banner would be revised to include it in both parent task forces at once; it would not require two banners.

Also, I don't understand what power struggle is envisioned. I for one have no interest in forcing NYSR to go one way or another in defining its scope or its style guidelines or whatever. Specifically I know of no wikiproject-level formatting for wp:NY, or for wp:capdis or for wp:syr or for any other mentioned wikiproject or task force. What formatting are you referring to for NYSR (is that written up somewhere)? Anyhow, the wp:NY wikiproject has little activity. Sounds more likely that an active few USRD members could overpower all others and change the New York wikiproject somehow! Though I am not worried, as I assume some effort to change wp:NY would be for some good purpose and/or that people would be reasonable in discussing some proposed change. doncram (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true; WPNY is virtually deserted. Maybe some of you NY roadfans would like to help? =) Powers ^T 02:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

USRD, de facto and (disputed) de jure, covers all roads including county routes, except minor city streets. Thus any arguments against making NYSR a NY task force would seem to apply just as well to splitting off county routes to a NY task force. --NE2 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NY 341

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I'm not convinced this route ever existed. None of my maps show the 341 designation extending into New York from Connecticut (many clearly show it ending at the state line), and the only map that does show a "NY 341" is a late 1940s USGS topo (and with its 96's and 338's [supposed to be 9G and 33B] it's not the best source to use). Does anyone have any information that could shed some light on the matter? – T M F 17:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the only 341 that I can find is one in the vicinity of Pawling. It connected NY 22 to the Connecticut state line but the routing is really unclear. The 1930 Socony map of New York shows a highway in this area as part of NY 55. Based on locations and currently existing roads, it used Quaker Hill and Meeting House Roads. The 1935 Sunoco map has 55 going to Connecticut on its modern alignment and old 55 east of 22 as 341. Unfortunately, the routing on this map is even more unclear. The last map I have that shows the route is the 1940 Gousha map, which has a clearer routing but still looks to be Quaker Hill and Meeting House Roads. However, that is the only one of my three 1940 maps that shows it, and none of my other 1940s maps has the route. – T M F 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another theory I came up with last night. Based on the CT 341 article, that route was established in the 1932 CT renumbering and was one of a small number of routes numbered in the 300s. The SPS in that article assumes that the high number was assigned for continuation with NY 341. Since the NY 341 near Pawling was in place by 1935, perhaps the Kent-Wassaic 341 was the original alignment of 341 established in the 1930 NY renumbering? The only 1930 map I have shows Bog Hollow Road but doesn't label it with a designation. – T M F 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Round Lake Bypass, part two

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See here. – T M F 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NY 431 on NRHP now

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Just yesterday the NPS announced that the Whiteface Mountain toll road has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I have updated the article appropriately, but there are two interesting things here:

First, the nomination form, whenever SHPO gets around to putting it on their website, will likely be chock full of interesting stuff about the road's history we may be able to expand the article with.

Second, I would like to see what the listing includes. If only the toll section and the buildings in support of it are listed (rather than the full route), we could justify a separate NRHP article since (I believe), the actual 431 designation ends at the toll booth. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where the toll booth is, but according to NYSDOT NY 431 is 7.96 miles long, which corresponds to the entirety of the Whiteface Mountain highway according to maps. Whoever drew up the junction list on NY 431 saw something that I'm not as the DOT quadrangles show the very western portion of the highway as part of NY 431 as well. – T M F 07:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The tollbooth is somewhere after the intersection with County Route 72, not a far distance though. Think about it, if people are paying to use 431, why would they give you the choice of taking CR 72? I looked over Yahoo Maps, although I cannot be certain, I would say after CR 72 there is a patch of malformed trees after the ponds. That is where I think the tollbooth is.Mitch/HC32 09:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget USGS topos... --NE2 12:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, that break in the trees is the location, as your topo shows that its right after the ponds west of CR 72. According to Google Maps, that's about 3.0 miles from NY 86.Mitch/HC32 12:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NY 329, NY 409 on NRHP

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Although its not a recent change, I have found the alignments of NY 329 and NY 409, rather boring routes, are both on the national register of historic places. They were added in 2002 for the Watkins Glen Grand Prix Race Course, which used the entirety of the two routes. This is just for information only, and want to make sure the project knows that NY 431 is the only one on it :P. Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Original route system

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I compiled a list of the routes in the original system from the 1910s and early 1920s here. One thing to note: if the state highway number is 5xxx, it was part of one of these. (8xxx was federal aid and 9xxx was taken over by the state for other reasons.) --NE2 05:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of NY 23

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anybody remember when I added that line in the article on New York State Route 23 regarding the repeated use of tenth-mile marker signs from that route as a promotion in road maps and atlases? Well, here's an example of this(http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6772/ny2310thmilemarkersinma.jpg). Believe it or not, this one is fairly recent. It was in the 1993 USA Today Sports Atlas, but H.M. Gousha and other map companies have had them around much longer than that. ----DanTD (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My 1973 (Gousha), 1974, 1981 and 1985 (Rand McNally) maps show one as well but my 1977 General Drafting map doesn't. On a side note, the given legend on all four maps plus the one you linked to above - "23 1306 1347" - roughly corresponds to a point on NY 23 just west of the Thruway near Catskill. I wonder if anyone's taken a picture of the marker that's there in reality yet... – T M F 09:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a marker westbound and it's 0.1 mi west of the Catskill Creek, very close to where the Thruway links to NY 23, which is now up on the Reference Markers page. The marker for eastbound (it's a four-lane in this areaa) is missing. Fwgoebel (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NY assessment audit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a complete audit of the NY assessment categories earlier today, changing the assessments of articles to match the guidelines at WP:USRD/A where necessary. The most common change was the demotion of articles that were assessed as B-Class but had an unreferenced or mostly unreferenced route description, which bumps it down to C-Class. If anyone has any questions on why I reassessed an article a particular way, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Thanks. – T M F 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nicoll's Road was finally flipped

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to make an annoucement; The route description for County Route 97 (Suffolk County, New York)(Nicolls Road) was finally flipped from south to north. Having said that, the construction of the road was from north to south, so I'd like to leave it that way in the history chapter. ----DanTD (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NY Reference Route templates

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a template for New York Reference Routes? I'd like to add one for roads that intersect with New York State Reference Route 900D(old Sunrise Highway, in Amityville & Massapequa). ----DanTD (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference route markers shouldn't be used in junction lists per MOS:RJL. The guideline states "Routes not indicated on the guide signs can be included in parentheses." As a logical extension of that, unsigned routes - as all but four reference routes are - should only be listed in parentheses with no shield. Additionally, junctions with reference routes should be formatted as <road name> (NY <number>), not just NY <number>. – T M F 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)